From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/16] xen/arm: calculate vgic irq rank
 based on register size
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:36:07 +0100
Message-ID: <53885F17.4080902@linaro.org>
References: <1401100009-7326-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>	<1401100009-7326-12-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>	<53847D81.7000005@linaro.org>	<CALicx6vw-c1dPJMZo=JyrxDHV67FyTx2HkgW_RbeWc51XLVpww@mail.gmail.com>	<53885659.1050903@linaro.org>
	<CALicx6vAx7fNJCqdy_fyON0QwDV5gcwPfFzndfigSQSvGnOfzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALicx6vAx7fNJCqdy_fyON0QwDV5gcwPfFzndfigSQSvGnOfzQ@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" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org



On 30/05/14 11:24, Vijay Kilari wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Hi Vijay,
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>        case GICD_ISENABLER ... GICD_ISENABLERN:
>>>>> -        if ( dabt.size != 2 ) goto bad_width;
>>>>> -        rank = vgic_irq_rank(v, 1, gicd_reg - GICD_ISENABLER);
>>>>> +        if ( dabt.size != DABT_WORD ) goto bad_width;
>>>>> +        rank = vgic_irq_rank(v, 1, gicd_reg - GICD_ISENABLER,
>>>>> DABT_WORD);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In your commit message you explicitly say that use DABT_* will help you
>>>> to get the register offset but... you still hardcode the size.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't you use dabt.size here? And all the other places.
>>>
>>>
>>>      dabt.size gives the current register access size but not the actual
>>> register size.
>>
>>
>> In this specific case, the register access size and the actual register size
>> is the same...
>
> Yes, in most of the cases it is same. But there are some register
> access that supports
> both byte and word size access. In that case we have to choose always
> the register size DABT_*
>
> To be consistent I have not used dabt.size.  In case if byte access to
> particular register
> is added then one can go wrong.

With your explanation, I don't see any reason to replace all the 
dabt.size != number by dat.size != DABT_*.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall