Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] genirq/irq_sim: Allow both one and two cell bindings

[Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 07:24:48 -0400,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:27 AM Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The IRQ simulator only support one cell binding now, this patch make it
> > works with either one or two cell bindings, where the cell values map
> > directly to the irq number and irq flags.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/irq/irq_sim.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq/irq_sim.c b/kernel/irq/irq_sim.c
> > index dd76323ea3fd..73a90b7b6022 100644
> > --- a/kernel/irq/irq_sim.c
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/irq_sim.c
> > @@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ static void irq_sim_domain_unmap(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int virq)
> >  static const struct irq_domain_ops irq_sim_domain_ops = {
> >         .map            = irq_sim_domain_map,
> >         .unmap          = irq_sim_domain_unmap,
> > +       .xlate          = irq_domain_xlate_onetwocell,
> >  };
> >
> >  /**
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> 
> You'll need Marc's (Cc'ed) Ack here.

The question is what will the simulator code do with this information.
Throw it away? What of 3/4/5 cell bindings? I'd rather see the
simulator being extended to deal with arbitrary bindings instead of
trading a harcoded limit for another one. And also give some
semantics to the extra cells.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.