From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/16] xen/arm: segregate and split GIC
	low level functionality
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:12:50 +0100
Message-ID: <535E53D2.6090301@linaro.org>
References: <1397560675-29861-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
	<1397560675-29861-8-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
	<534D7BDC.1010308@linaro.org>
	<CALicx6uQo4jg1fCjZhz7Pq4W6eGTq_CfE_u=usjAKgW3CsD9Cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<535E4440.7010305@linaro.org>
	<CALicx6vb0bo38_SHrL+034-dnpvv-tn_HALQJSd9A25fNRGSCA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALicx6vb0bo38_SHrL+034-dnpvv-tn_HALQJSd9A25fNRGSCA@mail.gmail.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: Vijay Kilari <vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Prasun Kapoor <Prasun.Kapoor@caviumnetworks.com>, Vijaya Kumar K <vijaya.kumar@caviumnetworks.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 04/28/2014 02:10 PM, Vijay Kilari wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Hello Vijaya
>>
>> On 04/28/2014 12:48 PM, Vijay Kilari wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> Thank you for the patch.
>>>>
>>>>>      /* Enable routing */
>>>>> -    GICD[GICD_ISENABLER + irq / 32] = (1u << (irq % 32));
>>>>> +    gic_hw_ops->gic_irq_ops->enable(desc);
>>>>
>>>> This is not the right way to use gic_irq_ops. You should directly
>>>> assigned this structure to desc->handler.
>>>>
>>>  I think desc->handler is already filled with ops of below struct
>>> which is used
>>
>> No, with your patch, the desc->handler is filled with ops from the
>> generic code. You added an indirection to call the specific ops.
>>
> 
> Do you mean to move gic_host_irq_type & gic_quest_irq_type
> to gic-{2/3}.c and register these with generic driver?
> So with this gic_lock should also be moved to gic-{2,3}.c

Yes. As I said in my previous mail, the gic_lock is only used to protect
hardware in your patch. I don't see any good reason to keep it in the
generic code.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall