From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 13/14] xen/xsm: Add support for device tree
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:24:38 +0000
Message-ID: <53234966.9030901@linaro.org>
References: <1394640969-25583-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1394640969-25583-14-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1394818442.6065.19.camel@kazak.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@linaro.org>) id 1WOWmg-00061M-Bt
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:24:42 +0000
Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id e49so1697219eek.17
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1394818442.6065.19.camel@kazak.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 Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Ian,

On 03/14/2014 05:34 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 16:16 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
>> This patch adds a new module "xen,xsm-blob" to allow the user to load the XSM
>> policy when Xen is booting.
> 
> While xsm_dt_policy_init does seem DT specific the xem_dt_init is very
> similar to the xsm_multiboot_init. Can they not be a common function
> with #ifdef HAVE_MULTIBOOT / #ifdef HAVE_DEVICETREE around the relevant
> specific bits (essentially just the call to the relevant policy_init)?
> Or at least refactor the tail of xsm_init into xsm_core_init which both
> cases can call into.

The parameters of the function is not the same and it seems stupid to
also ifdef the list of arguments :).

I can at least create a new function with

    if ( verify(&dummy_xsm_ops) )
    {
        printk("%s could not verify dummy_xsm_ops structure.\n",
               __FUNCTION__);
        ret = -EIO;
        goto err;
    }

    xsm_ops = &dummy_xsm_ops;
    do_xsm_initcalls();

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall