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

[Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2022/9/26 20:55, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 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.

Hi Marc,

> 
> 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

The 3/4/5 cell bindings is selience ignored currently.

> 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.

Would you means we should allow the users to overwrite the xlate callback
or overwrite the domain_ops?

Regards,
Wei Yongjun