On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 07:53:58PM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote:
[...]
> > +struct gic gicv2 = {
> > + .ipi = {
> > + .enable = gicv2_enable_defaults,
> > + .send_self = gicv2_ipi_send_self,
> > + .send_tlist = gicv2_ipi_send_tlist,
> > + .send_broadcast = gicv2_ipi_send_broadcast,
> > + },
> > + .read_iar = gicv2_read_iar,
> > + .irqnr = gicv2_irqnr,
> > + .write_eoi = gicv2_write_eoi,
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct gic gicv3 = {
> > + .ipi = {
> > + .enable = gicv3_enable_defaults,
> > + .send_self = gicv3_ipi_send_self,
> > + .send_tlist = gicv3_ipi_send_tlist,
> > + .send_broadcast = gicv3_ipi_send_broadcast,
> > + },
> > + .read_iar = gicv3_read_iar,
> > + .irqnr = gicv3_irqnr,
> > + .write_eoi = gicv3_write_eoir,
> > +};
> > +
>
> So I was re-basing my kvm-unit-tests against your GIC rework and found
> myself copy and pasting a bunch of this into my tests that fire IRQs.
> That makes me think the abstraction should be in the library code so
> other tests can fiddle with sending IRQs.
>
> What do you think?
>
I guess you mean moving the above two structs and their corresponding
functions (all which aren't already common) to lib/arm/ ? Or do you
just mean the one non-trivial function gicv3_ipi_send_tlist? I think
agree with gicv3_ipi_send_tlist getting shared, but the others are
mostly one-liners, so I'm not sure. I guess I'd have to see how you're
using them first.
Thanks,
drew
