Re: [PATCH v2 05/15] xen/arm: segregate GIC low level functionality

From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Cc: Vijay Kilari <vijay.kilari@gmail.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/15] xen/arm: segregate GIC low level functionality
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:55:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1397058926.6275.134.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53450697.8040506@linaro.org>

On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 09:36 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>
> >>> +    void (*enable_irq)(int);
> >>> +    void (*disable_irq)(int);
> >>> +    void (*eoi_irq)(int);
> >>> +    void (*deactivate_irq)(int);
> >>> +    unsigned int (*ack_irq)(void);
> >>
> >> I would prefer to introduce a new hw_irq_controller here rather than
> >> adding another abstraction.
> >>
> >    hw_irq_controller can be used only for enable_irq, disable_irq  & eoi_irq.
> > other callbacks in hw_irq_controller cannot be used.
> >
> > Ex: ack_irq in our case returns the irq where as 'ack' callback in
> > hw_irq_controller
> > does not return a value. So not suitable here.
> 
> Hmmm... rigth for deactivate_irq and ack_irq. For the others you can 
> definitely use the hw_irq_controller.

Perhaps
	struct gic_irq_controller {
		struct hw_irq_controller hw_irq;
		unsigned int (*ack_irq)(void)
	}

And use container_of to go fom a hw_Irq to a gic_irq_controller when
needed?

Ian.