On 23.10.2023 12:12, Oleksii wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-10-19 at 11:14 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 14.09.2023 16:56, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-generic/device.h
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
>>> +#ifndef __ASM_GENERIC_DEVICE_H__
>>> +#define __ASM_GENERIC_DEVICE_H__
>>> +
>>> +struct dt_device_node;
>>> +
>>> +enum device_type
>>> +{
>>> + DEV_DT,
>>> + DEV_PCI,
>>> +};
>>
>> Are both of these really generic?
>>
>>> +struct device {
>>> + enum device_type type;
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_DEVICE_TREE
>>> + struct dt_device_node *of_node; /* Used by drivers imported
>>> from Linux */
>>> +#endif
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +enum device_class
>>> +{
>>> + DEVICE_SERIAL,
>>> + DEVICE_IOMMU,
>>> + DEVICE_GIC,
>>
>> This one certainly is Arm-specific.
> Yes, but the definition of GIC sounds common, so I decided to leave it.
> But it can be changed.
>
>>
>>> + DEVICE_PCI_HOSTBRIDGE,
>>
>> And this one's PCI-specific.
>>
>> Overall same question as before: Are you expecting that RISC-V is
>> going to
>> get away without a customized header? I wouldn't think so.
> At least right now, I am using the same header device.h as in ARM,
Are you? I just double checked, and I can't see yours matching theirs.
First example of a difference is them having struct dev_archdata.
Jan
> and
> there wasn't a need for a customized version of the header.
>
> ~ Oleksii
>
