[PATCH v2 6/8] arm: prepare for instantiating different IRQ chip devices

Hi Marc,

On 06/10/2015 06:21 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:

On 05/06/15 09:37, Andre Przywara wrote:

quoted

Extend the vGIC handling code to potentially deal with different IRQ
chip devices instead of hard-coding the GICv2 in.
We extend most vGIC functions to take a type parameter, but still put
GICv2 in at the top for the time being.

Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>

...

quoted

@@ -26,21 +26,37 @@ static int gic__create_device(struct kvm *kvm)
 	};
 	struct kvm_device_attr dist_attr = {
 		.group	= KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR,
-		.attr	= KVM_VGIC_V2_ADDR_TYPE_DIST,
 		.addr	= (u64)(unsigned long)&dist_addr,
 	};
 
+	switch (type) {
+	case IRQCHIP_GICV2:
+		gic_device.type = KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V2;
+		break;
+	default:
+		return -ENODEV;
+	}
+
 	err = ioctl(kvm->vm_fd, KVM_CREATE_DEVICE, &gic_device);
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
 	gic_fd = gic_device.fd;
 
-	err = ioctl(gic_fd, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &cpu_if_attr);
+	switch (type) {
+	case IRQCHIP_GICV2:
+		dist_attr.attr = KVM_VGIC_V2_ADDR_TYPE_DIST;

You could move the structure patching in the first switch statement.

quoted

+		err = ioctl(gic_fd, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &cpu_if_attr);
+		break;
+	default:
+		return -ENODEV;

This default cannot be reached, as you've already caught the weird stuff
above.

Tell that the compiler, not me ;-)
Will check if dropping IRQCHIP_DEFAULT will appease the compiler.

....

quoted

@@ -131,15 +156,26 @@ static int gic__init_gic(struct kvm *kvm)
 }
 late_init(gic__init_gic)
 
-void gic__generate_fdt_nodes(void *fdt, u32 phandle)
+void gic__generate_fdt_nodes(void *fdt, u32 phandle, enum irqchip_type type)
 {
+	const char *compatible;
 	u64 reg_prop[] = {
-		cpu_to_fdt64(ARM_GIC_DIST_BASE), cpu_to_fdt64(ARM_GIC_DIST_SIZE),
-		cpu_to_fdt64(ARM_GIC_CPUI_BASE), cpu_to_fdt64(ARM_GIC_CPUI_SIZE),
+		cpu_to_fdt64(ARM_GIC_DIST_BASE),
+		cpu_to_fdt64(ARM_GIC_DIST_SIZE),
+		cpu_to_fdt64(ARM_GIC_CPUI_BASE),
+		cpu_to_fdt64(ARM_GIC_CPUI_SIZE),
 	};

Any particular reason for this change? I found the original more readable...

80 characters. I will revert this.

Fixed the rest.

Thanks!
Andre.