From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vijay Kilari Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/15] xen/arm: register mmio handler at runtime Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:05:54 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1396612593-443-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> <1396612593-443-2-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> <533EA307.4000900@linaro.org> <533ECF5F.1040403@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <533ECF5F.1040403@linaro.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Julien Grall Cc: Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini , Prasun Kapoor , Vijaya Kumar K , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Julien Grall wrote: > On 04/04/2014 04:24 PM, Vijay Kilari wrote: > >>>> As I said on the previous version, it would be nice to remove check >>>> callback in the mmio_handler and replace it by addr/size. It's better if >>>> we might want to change the place in the memory following the guest. >>>> >>>> So the result function would be: >>>> >>>> register_mmio_handler(struct domain *d, read_t read, write_t write, >>>> addr, size); >>>> >>> OK. >> Though you suggested, I kept this check handler because it gives flexibility >> for driver to make additional checks if required apart from just checking for >> address range. > > What kind of checks? If the handler is registered to a domain that means > we want to use it, right? It would seem strange to trap once a while. IMO, with check handler it will give more flexibility for driver to various kinds of checks. Ex: Driver wants to check for multiple addr ranges etc., > > Regards, > > -- > Julien Grall