From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/15] xen/arm: segregate VGIC low level functionality Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:13:21 +0100 Message-ID: <533EBE01.70601@linaro.org> References: <1396612593-443-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> <1396612593-443-10-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1396612593-443-10-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: vijay.kilari@gmail.com Cc: Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, Prasun.Kapoor@caviumnetworks.com, vijaya.kumar@caviumnetworks.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hello Vijay, Thank you for the patch. On 04/04/2014 12:56 PM, vijay.kilari@gmail.com wrote: > From: Vijaya Kumar K > > VGIC low level functionality is segregated into > separate functions and are called using registered > callback wherever required. > > This helps to separate generic and hardware functionality > later Same remark as patch #5, is less clear to have 2 separate patches. [..] > +DT_DEVICE_START(gicv2, "VGIC", DEVICE_VGIC) > + .compatible = vgicv2_dt_compat, > + .init = vgic_v2_init, > +DT_DEVICE_END > + hrm ... VGIC is not a device, if you don't plan to support different VGIC per domain then you can directly return the vgic callbacks for the gic drivers. Regards, -- Julien Grall