From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 13/18] xen/arm: ITS: Add irq
 descriptors for LPIs
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:04:29 +0100
Message-ID: <1436285069.25646.264.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1434974517-12136-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
	<1434974517-12136-14-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
	<1435582703.32500.317.camel@citrix.com>	<55914416.6040704@citrix.com>
	<CALicx6t28VJKePEJhX8hLs5+ccxpXw4Ay8H5m57MmjiPdOYUhg@mail.gmail.com>
	<559BB4F4.4040909@citrix.com> <1436284206.25646.258.camel@citrix.com>
	<559BF5D7.6090309@citrix.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: <559BF5D7.6090309@citrix.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: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
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>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>, manish.jaggi@caviumnetworks.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 16:52 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 07/07/15 16:50, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I'd rather we refactored these checks into some sort of is_valid_irq()
> > helper which could check vs. nr_lines (which remains the
> > GICD_TYPER.ITLinesNumber based thing) and the number of LPIs separately.
> > 
> > Combining the two risks considering interrupt in the 1025..8191 range as
> > valid and open coding anything more complex than the existing single <
> > check in all the relevant places isn't going to scale.
> 
> I would be fine with that too. Although, I think we need to add a
> comment on top of gic_number_lines to clearly specify this is not
> included LPIs.

Strictly speaking an LPI being message signalled is not associated with
a line, which is why GICD_TYPER.ITLinesNumber also doesn't consider
them. But that's not necessarily all that obvious, so a comment would be
appropriate, yes.

Ian.