On 29/01/15 12:28, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 29/01/15 11:07, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> The partial device tree may contains phandle. The Device Tree Compiler >>>> tends to allocate the phandle from 1. >>>> >>>> Reserve the ID 65000 for the GIC phandle. I think we can safely assume >>>> that the partial device tree will never contain a such ID. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@linaro.org> >>>> Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> >>>> Cc: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> >>>> >>> >>> Shouldn't we at least check that the partial device tree doesn't contain >>> a conflicting phandle? >> >> I don't think so. This will unlikely happen, and if it happens the guest >> will crash with an obvious error. > > It is good that the error is obvious. > > But how expensive is to check for it?
I would have to check the validity of the properties (name + value size). At least the properties "linux,phandle" and "phandle" should be checked. Though I could do in copy_properties but I find it hackish. > Think about the poor user that ends up in this situation: the fact that > is unlikely only makes it harder for a user to figure out what to do to > fix it. The poor use will have to write his device tree by hand to hit this error ;). So using the right phandle is not a huge drawback. Regards, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
