Hi Leonid,
On 28/08/2025 17:17, Leonid Komarianskyi wrote:
On 28.08.25 15:00, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Leonid,
On 27/08/2025 19:24, Leonid Komarianskyi wrote:
Currently, many common functions perform the same operations to calculate
GIC register addresses. This patch consolidates the similar code into
a separate helper function to improve maintainability and reduce
duplication.
This refactoring also simplifies the implementation of eSPI support in
future
changes.
Signed-off-by: Leonid Komarianskyi <leonid_komarians...@epam.com>
Reviewed-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babc...@epam.com>
---
Changes in V4:
- no changes
Changes in V3:
- changed panic() in get_addr_by_offset() to printing warning and
ASSERT_UNREACHABLE()
- added verification of return pointer from get_addr_by_offset() in the
callers
- moved invocation of get_addr_by_offset() from spinlock guards, since
it is not necessarry
- added RB from Volodymyr Babchuk
Procces remark, here you said the Reviewed-by from Volodymyr was added
in v3. However, given the changes you made this should have been
invalidated (reviewed-by means the person read the code and confirmed it
is correct).
I see Volodymyr confirmed his reviewed-by on v3. So no issue, but this
should have been clarified in the changelog.
Thank you for your explanation.
Just to clarify: would it be okay to leave the RB tag (with appropriate
text in the changelog) if I fix some minor nit from another reviewer in
the next version, like in this patch?
It depends on the change. In general, typoes or coding style changes (I
include s/uX/uint_X) are fine to keep the review by. Anything else may
need a review again.
Acked-by are different because they don't carry a full review. So for
slightly bigger change it would be fine to keep. But if the logic is
fully rewritten, then they would need to be dropped.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
