From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 p2 16/19] tools/libxl: arm: Use an higher
 value for the GIC phandle
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 18:00:03 +0100
Message-ID: <5526B013.9080906@citrix.com>
References: <1428592185-18581-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com>
	<1428592185-18581-17-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com>
	<21798.42495.633318.607315@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<5526A9ED.2000803@gmail.com>
	<21798.44594.785262.371575@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@citrix.com>) id 1YgFog-00014O-BY
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 17:00:34 +0000
In-Reply-To: <21798.44594.785262.371575@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, ian.campbell@citrix.com, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>, tim@xen.org, Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 09/04/15 17:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Julien Grall writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 p2 16/19] tools/libxl: arm: Use an higher value for the GIC phandle"):
>> On 09/04/15 17:17, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I only expect people using the partial device tree in very specific use
>> case. Generic use case is not even possible with the current status of
>> non-PCI (i.e device tree) passthrough. So people control their environment.
>>
>> As I said later in patch, supporting dynamic allocation will require
>> some rework in the device tree creation for the guest.
>>
>> So I was suggesting this solution as temporary in order to not block the
>> DT passthrough.
> 
> What would happen if our assumption about the DT compiler were
> violated ?

The phandle would be present in 2 different nodes of the DT. FYI, that
may also happen if a user use 2 times the same phandle in the partial DT.

The guest may retrieve the wrong node and warn/crash depending on the
implementation.

Although, it won't impact neither Xen nor the toolstack.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall