Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC 03/19] xen/arm: follow-up to allow DOM0 manage IRQ and MMIO

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/03/2014 12:02 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 21:32 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> @@ -865,10 +888,9 @@ static int handle_node(struct domain *d, struct 
>>>> kernel_info *kinfo,
>>>>        *  property. Therefore these device doesn't need to be mapped. This
>>>>        *  solution can be use later for pass through.
>>>>        */
>>>> -    if ( !dt_device_type_is_equal(node, "memory") &&
>>>> -         dt_device_is_available(node) )
>>>> +    if ( !dt_device_type_is_equal(node, "memory") )
>>>>       {
>>>> -        res = map_device(d, node);
>>>> +        res = handle_device(d, node, dt_device_is_available(node));
>>>>
>>>>           if ( res )
>>>>               return res;
>>>
>>> We need a comment here
>>
>> Hmmm... I don't see what kind of comment I can add here. There is 
>> already lots of comments explaining handle_device and the previous if.
> 
> I'd be inclined to push the dt_device_is_available call down into the
> handle_function. 
> 
> Otherwise I would go with
>     res = make_deevice_available(node)

What will do make_device_available?

>     if (!res && dt_...available(node)
>         res = map_device(node).

AFAIU, it would means to duplicate the loop to get interrupt/MMIO twice
which I think it's stupid.

So, I prefer to push the dt_device_is_available call down into the
handle_function.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel