On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Julien Grall wrote: > 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.
Fair enough. Please document this limitation in the docs and/or manuals. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
