Re: [PATCH v2 07/17] libxl/arm: Construct ACPI GTDT table

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>]

Hi Shannon,

On 27/06/16 02:44, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> On 2016/6/24 0:26, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 23/06/16 04:16, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> Construct GTDT table with the interrupt information of timers.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>    tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c
>>> index d5ffedf..de863f4 100644
>>> --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c
>>> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_arm_acpi.c
>>> @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ typedef uint64_t u64;
>>>    #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6 "XenARM"
>>>    #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME4 "Xen "
>>>
>>> +#define ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE            (u8) 0x00
>>> +#define ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW                 (u8) 0x01
>>> +
>>
>> Why did not you include actypes.h rather than define these two defines?
> If we include actypes.h, there will be some compiling errors.
>
> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:55:2: error: #error ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH
> not defined
>   #error ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH not defined
>    ^
> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:130:9: error: unknown type name
> 'COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64'
>   typedef COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64 UINT64;
>           ^
> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:131:9: error: unknown type name
> 'COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64'
>   typedef COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 INT64;
>           ^
> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:202:2: error: #error unknown
> ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH
>   #error unknown ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH
>    ^
> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:207:9: error: unknown type name
> 'acpi_native_uint'
>   typedef acpi_native_uint acpi_size;
>           ^
> ../../xen/include/acpi/actypes.h:617:3: error: unknown type name
> 'acpi_io_address'
>     acpi_io_address pblk_address;
>
> Yeah, it maybe can be solved by defining ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH and
> COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 here, but since we only needs
> ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE and ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW, I think it's ok to define them
> here.

We should avoid to redefine value as much as possible. The 2 missing 
values are easy to define (see below) so there is no point to redefine 
in a less obvious way: no comment to explain what the values are for, 
and only a part of the set defined.

#define ACPI_MACHINE_WIDTH BITS_PER_LONG
#define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64 int64_t

Wei, Ian, Stefano, do you have any opinions?

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall

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