lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 16/21] irqchip: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
    Date
    On Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:53:22 AM Catalin Marinas wrote:
    > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:50:36PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > > On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 04:39:56 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:

    [cut]

    > > > diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
    > > > index c03d8d1..e27117a 100644
    > > > --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
    > > > +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
    > > > @@ -557,6 +557,20 @@ static inline int acpi_device_modalias(struct device *dev,
    > > >
    > > > #endif /* !CONFIG_ACPI */
    > > >
    > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ACPI) && defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
    > > > +static inline void acpi_irq_init(void)
    > > > +{
    > > > + /*
    > > > + * Hardcode ACPI IRQ chip initialization to GICv2 for now.
    > > > + * Proper irqchip infrastructure will be implemented along with
    > > > + * incoming GICv2m|GICv3|ITS bits.
    > > > + */
    > > > + acpi_gic_init();
    > > > +}
    > > > +#else
    > > > +static inline void acpi_irq_init(void) { }
    > > > +#endif
    > >
    > > I don't want this in a common header.
    >
    > I don't like it either. What about adding it to a new header,
    > linux/acpi_irq.h just for the dummy acpi_irq_init()? This would be
    > similar to the DT equivalent, of_irq_init() in linux/of_irq.h and at
    > some point it will gain more macros for declaring interrupt controllers
    > in the ACPI context.
    >
    > What we objected to previously was calling acpi_gic_init() directly from
    > the core irqchip_init() and asked for something similar to the more
    > generic of_irq_init(). The arm64-specific patch above is clearly a
    > temporary hack until full support for multiple interrupt controllers is
    > added (we asked for this several times in the past, but the ARM ACPI
    > guys thought it's too much hassle ;). I don't fully get it since one of
    > the platforms they target needs GICv2m support anyway).
    >
    > Anyway, if we are to keep the temporary hack, I think we could define
    > something like below (possibly in a new linux/acpi_irq.h which includes
    > asm/irq.h):
    >
    > #ifndef acpi_irq_init
    > static inline void acpi_irq_init(void)
    > {
    > }
    > #endif
    >
    > And in the arm64 asm/irq.h:
    >
    > static inline void acpi_irq_init(void)
    > {
    > /*
    > * Hardcode ACPI IRQ chip initialization to GICv2 for now.
    > * Proper irqchip infrastructure will be implemented along with
    > * incoming GICv2m|GICv3|ITS bits.
    > */
    > acpi_gic_init();
    > }
    > #define acpi_irq_init acpi_irq_init
    >
    > When the new infrastructure is in place, we can get rid of the #ifndef
    > and arm64-specific acpi_irq_init().

    Well, that sounds much better than the original patch.

    Rafael



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-03-06 01:21    [W:6.439 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site