Hi Julien, > -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Grall <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] xen/arm: Defer GICv2 CPU interface mapping until > the first access > > Hi, > > >>> @@ -153,6 +153,8 @@ struct vgic_dist { > >>> /* Base address for guest GIC */ > >>> paddr_t dbase; /* Distributor base address */ > >>> paddr_t cbase; /* CPU interface base address */ > >>> + paddr_t csize; /* CPU interface size */ > >>> + paddr_t vbase; /* virtual CPU interface base address */ > >> Could you swap them so that base address variables are grouped? > > > > Sure, my original thought was grouping the CPU interface related fields but > > since you prefer grouping the base address, I will follow your suggestion. > > I would actually prefer your approach because it is easier to associate > the size with the base. > > An alternative would be to use a structure to combine the base/size. So > it is even clearer the association. > > I don't have a strong opinion on either of the two approach I suggested.
Maybe we can do something like this: ``` paddr_t dbase; /* Distributor base address */ paddr_t vbase; /* virtual CPU interface base address */ paddr_t cbase; /* CPU interface base address */ paddr_t csize; /* CPU interface size */ ``` So we can ensure both "base address variables are grouped" and "CPU interface variables are grouped". If you don't like this, I would prefer the way I am currently doing, as personally I think an extra structure would slightly be an overkill :) Thanks. Kind regards, Henry > > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall
