Re: [PATCH v5 06/19] xen: arm: move dom0 gic and timer device tree nodes under /xen/

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>]

On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 18:28 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Julien observed that we were relying on the provided host DTB supplying
> > suitable #address-cells and #size-cells values to allow us to represent these
> > addresses, which may not reliably be the case. Moving these under our own
> > known (somewhat analogous to the use of /soc/ or /motherboard/ on some
> > platforms) allows us to control these sizes.
> > 
> > Since the xen node is created out of thin air it does not have a corresponding
> > struct dt_device_node and therefore we cannot use dt_n_addr_cells or
> > dt_n_size_cells, we can use hardcoded constants instead. For the same reason
> > we define and use set_xen_range instead of dt_set_range.
> > 
> > The hypervisor, cpus and psci node all either defined #foo-cells for their
> > children or do not contain reg properties and therefore can remain at the top
> > level.
> > 
> > The logging in make_gic_node was inconsistent. Fix it.
> 
> I think that using the string "xen" as node name is confusing.
> I would use something more informative, as "xen-motherboard" or
> "xen-virtual-devices", so that people can guess how it differs from
> the hypervisor node.

The content is the GIC, timer and memory, so neither xen-motherboard nor
xen-virtual-devices sound especially relevant.

No one will ever see this in practice, unless they are deliberately
looking to debug it, since it is built on the fly and only for dom0.

TBH, I think /hypervisor/xen would have been fine.

"xen-system"? Still kinda lame.

Ian.