Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] xen/arm: vgic: Introduce helpers to extract/update/clear/set vGIC register ...

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>]

Hi,

I've just noticed one error in this patch :/

On 09/11/15 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
> @@ -482,16 +500,16 @@ static int __vgic_v3_distr_common_mmio_write(const char *name, struct vcpu *v,
>          return 0;
>  
>      case GICD_IPRIORITYR ... GICD_IPRIORITYRN:
> +    {
> +        uint32_t *ipriorityr;
> +
>          if ( dabt.size != DABT_BYTE && dabt.size != DABT_WORD ) goto bad_width;
>          rank = vgic_rank_offset(v, 8, reg - GICD_IPRIORITYR, DABT_WORD);
>          if ( rank == NULL ) goto write_ignore;
>          vgic_lock_rank(v, rank, flags);
> -        if ( dabt.size == DABT_WORD )
> -            rank->ipriorityr[REG_RANK_INDEX(8, reg - GICD_IPRIORITYR,
> -                                            DABT_WORD)] = r;
> -        else
> -            vgic_byte_write(&rank->ipriorityr[REG_RANK_INDEX(8,
> -                       reg - GICD_IPRIORITYR, DABT_WORD)], r, reg);
> +        ipriorityr = &rank->ipriorityr[REG_RANK_INDEX(8, reg - GICD_IPRIORITYR,
> +                                                      DABT_WORD)];
> +        vgic_reg32_update(ipriorityr, r, info);
>          vgic_unlock_rank(v, rank, flags);
>          return 1;

There is a missing } here. Somehow gcc didn't complain but there is a
spurious closed brace in the next case.

>      case GICD_ICFGR: /* Restricted to configure SGIs */
> @@ -503,9 +521,13 @@ static int __vgic_v3_distr_common_mmio_write(const char *name, struct vcpu *v,
>          rank = vgic_rank_offset(v, 2, reg - GICD_ICFGR, DABT_WORD);
>          if ( rank == NULL ) goto write_ignore;
>          vgic_lock_rank(v, rank, flags);
> -        rank->icfg[REG_RANK_INDEX(2, reg - GICD_ICFGR, DABT_WORD)] = r;
> +        vgic_reg32_update(&rank->icfg[REG_RANK_INDEX(2, reg - GICD_ICFGR,
> +                                                     DABT_WORD)],
> +                          r, info);
>          vgic_unlock_rank(v, rank, flags);
>          return 1;
> +    }
> +

Here is the spurious one.

I will either resend this whole series or only this patch depending on
the reviews.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall