From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Vijay Kilari <vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/15] xen/arm: split gic driver into
 generic and gic-v2 driver
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:57:28 +0530
Message-ID: <CALicx6sAP906h3ovKo8BdrUa1O__m8K9XdXKHkNE+O-M=E6j9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1396612593-443-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
	<1396612593-443-8-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com>
	<1397120283.9862.39.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.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: <1397120283.9862.39.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.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: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Prasun Kapoor <Prasun.Kapoor@caviumnetworks.com>, Vijaya Kumar K <vijaya.kumar@caviumnetworks.com>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 17:26 +0530, vijay.kilari@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Vijaya Kumar K <Vijaya.Kumar@caviumnetworks.com>
>>
>> Existing GIC driver has both generic code and hw specific
>> code. Segregate GIC low level driver into gic-v2.c and
>> keep generic code in existing gic.c file
>
> This is substantially just code motion, correct?
>
  Yes, but now I think to avoid confusion I will make single
patch for spliting v2 driver & code movement as in V1

> I notice that gicv2_init does not hold the gic lock while calling +
> gic_{dist,cpu,hyp}_init(), is that intentional?
>
>> +static struct gic_hw_operations gic_ops;
>
> If you order this file:
>         callbacks
>         gic_hw_ops
>         gicv2_init
>
Yes, this is called only during init by boot cpu and is not called by
any other cpu
So, I have not taken the lock.

> Then you can avoid this forward declaration and more importantly you can
> probably mark the struct as const.
>
> Ian.
>