From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/24] xen/arm: gic: Add sanity checks
 gic_route_irq_to_guest
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:52:44 +0000
Message-ID: <1424706764.27930.180.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1421159133-31526-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1421159133-31526-11-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1424448429.30924.333.camel@citrix.com> <54E76EAC.6090100@linaro.org>
	<1424704810.27930.155.camel@citrix.com> <54EB4B7F.8090605@linaro.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1YPvJx-0006Ww-S7
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:53:21 +0000
In-Reply-To: <54EB4B7F.8090605@linaro.org>
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: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 15:47 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> On 23/02/15 15:20, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 17:28 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> The priority is controlled by route_irq_to_guest and set statically
> >> using GIC_PRI_IRQ.
> >>
> >> If we decide to hardcoded the priority here, we should drop the
> >> parameter on gic_route_irq_guest. But not keeping both.
> > 
> > There is a middle ground, which is for guest-routed IRQs to be allowed a
> > subset of the real priorities, but until those associated checks are in
> > place I think hardcoding in gic_route_irq_to_guest leaves less scope for
> > mistakes.
> 
> The interface for routing an IRQ to xen (gic_route_irq_to_xen) is taking
> the priority in parameter.

It's useful and safe in the route to xen case.

> I would prefer if we keep the same interface for guest and then hardcode
> the value in route_irq_to_guest.

In which case I think route_irq_to_guest should complain/error-out if
the priority given is not the default one until such a time as it
understands which inputs are safe.

Ian.