From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
To: agustinv@codeaurora.org
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
lenb@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, jason@lakedaemon.net,
marc.zyngier@arm.com, timur@codeaurora.org, cov@codeaurora.org,
agross@codeaurora.org, harba@codeaurora.org, jcm@redhat.com,
msalter@redhat.com, mlangsdo@redhat.com, ahs3@redhat.com,
astone@redhat.com, graeme.gregory@linaro.org,
guohanjun@huawei.com, charles.garcia-tobin@arm.com,
Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com>,
Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/3] ACPI: Add support for ResourceSource/IRQ domain mapping
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 22:38:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5827297C.6000108@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <713f102418c0fffacf67acb16dbdeec2@codeaurora.org>
On 11/12/2016 11:01 AM, agustinv@codeaurora.org wrote:
> Hey Lorenzo, Hanjun,
>
> On 2016-11-11 08:33, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> Hi Lorenzo,
>>
>> On 11/11/2016 01:58 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:02:35AM -0500, agustinv@codeaurora.org wrote:
>>>> Hey Hanjun,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-11-09 21:36, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marc, Rafael, Lorenzo,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we agreed to add a probe deferral if we failed to get irq
>>>>> resources which mirroring the DT does (patch 1 in this patch set),
>>>>> I think the last blocker to make things work both for Agustin and
>>>>> me [1] is this patch, which makes the interrupt producer and consumer
>>>>> work in ACPI, we have two different solution for one thing, we'd happy
>>>>> to work together for one solution, could you give some suggestions
>>>>> please?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]:
>>>>> https://mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1257419.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Agustin, I have some comments below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016/10/29 4:48, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:
>>>>>> This allows irqchip drivers to associate an ACPI DSDT device to
>>>>>> an IRQ domain and provides support for using the ResourceSource
>>>>>> in Extended IRQ Resources to find the domain and map the IRQs
>>>>>> specified on that domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Agustin Vega-Frias <agustinv@codeaurora.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/acpi/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>>> drivers/acpi/irqdomain.c | 119
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>
>>>>> Could we just reuse the gsi.c and not introduce a new
>>>>> file, probably we can change the gsi.c to irqdomain.c
>>>>> or something similar, then reuse the code in gsi.c.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking just that after we chatted off-list.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's a fair point.
>>>
>>>> I might revisit and see what I come up with given that we already have
>>>> a device argument and we could pass the IRQ source there.
>>>
>>> I agree with the approach taken by this patch, I do not like much
>>> passing around struct acpi_resource_source *source (in particular
>>> the dummy struct) I do not think it is needed, I will comment on
>>> the code.
>>
>> thanks for your time to have a look:)
>>
>>>
>>> Hopefully there is not any buggy FW out there that does use the
>>> resource source inappropriately otherwise we will notice on x86/ia64
>>> (ie you can't blame FW if it breaks the kernel) but I suspect the
>>> only way to find out is by trying, the patch has to go through Rafael's
>>> review anyway before getting there so it is fine.
>>
>> I think we can avoid that by not touching the logic that x86/ia64
>> already used, but only adding interrupt producer/consumer function.
>
> I looked at this more today and implemented a new patch that I plan to
> test over the weekend, but I wanted to let you know the approach I am
> pursuing.
>
> On the new patch use of ResourceSource when parsing ACPI Extended IRQ
> Resources is conditional on CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI. The reason for this
> is two fold:
>
> 1. Since we wanted to reduce duplication and place the new APIs on the
> same source file as acpi_register_gsi, which is already under that
> config flag.
> 2. So the patch does not have effect on platforms not using the generic
> GSI support, including x86/ia64.
>
> If support for this is needed outside platforms using the generic GSI
> implementation, we can move these APIs out to their own source file
> and eliminate the CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI conditionality.
I think is fine because ACPI_GENERIC_GSI is not for x86 at now, please
send out the patch then we can discuss.
Thanks
Hanjun
>
> I'll send the new patch, hopefully some time tomorrow, but please let
> me know if you have concerns with this approach.
>
> Thanks,
> Agustin
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V6 2/3] ACPI: Add support for ResourceSource/IRQ domain mapping
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 22:38:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5827297C.6000108@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <713f102418c0fffacf67acb16dbdeec2@codeaurora.org>
On 11/12/2016 11:01 AM, agustinv at codeaurora.org wrote:
> Hey Lorenzo, Hanjun,
>
> On 2016-11-11 08:33, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> Hi Lorenzo,
>>
>> On 11/11/2016 01:58 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:02:35AM -0500, agustinv at codeaurora.org wrote:
>>>> Hey Hanjun,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-11-09 21:36, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marc, Rafael, Lorenzo,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we agreed to add a probe deferral if we failed to get irq
>>>>> resources which mirroring the DT does (patch 1 in this patch set),
>>>>> I think the last blocker to make things work both for Agustin and
>>>>> me [1] is this patch, which makes the interrupt producer and consumer
>>>>> work in ACPI, we have two different solution for one thing, we'd happy
>>>>> to work together for one solution, could you give some suggestions
>>>>> please?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]:
>>>>> https://mail-archive.com/linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org/msg1257419.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Agustin, I have some comments below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016/10/29 4:48, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:
>>>>>> This allows irqchip drivers to associate an ACPI DSDT device to
>>>>>> an IRQ domain and provides support for using the ResourceSource
>>>>>> in Extended IRQ Resources to find the domain and map the IRQs
>>>>>> specified on that domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Agustin Vega-Frias <agustinv@codeaurora.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/acpi/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>>> drivers/acpi/irqdomain.c | 119
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>
>>>>> Could we just reuse the gsi.c and not introduce a new
>>>>> file, probably we can change the gsi.c to irqdomain.c
>>>>> or something similar, then reuse the code in gsi.c.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking just that after we chatted off-list.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's a fair point.
>>>
>>>> I might revisit and see what I come up with given that we already have
>>>> a device argument and we could pass the IRQ source there.
>>>
>>> I agree with the approach taken by this patch, I do not like much
>>> passing around struct acpi_resource_source *source (in particular
>>> the dummy struct) I do not think it is needed, I will comment on
>>> the code.
>>
>> thanks for your time to have a look:)
>>
>>>
>>> Hopefully there is not any buggy FW out there that does use the
>>> resource source inappropriately otherwise we will notice on x86/ia64
>>> (ie you can't blame FW if it breaks the kernel) but I suspect the
>>> only way to find out is by trying, the patch has to go through Rafael's
>>> review anyway before getting there so it is fine.
>>
>> I think we can avoid that by not touching the logic that x86/ia64
>> already used, but only adding interrupt producer/consumer function.
>
> I looked at this more today and implemented a new patch that I plan to
> test over the weekend, but I wanted to let you know the approach I am
> pursuing.
>
> On the new patch use of ResourceSource when parsing ACPI Extended IRQ
> Resources is conditional on CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI. The reason for this
> is two fold:
>
> 1. Since we wanted to reduce duplication and place the new APIs on the
> same source file as acpi_register_gsi, which is already under that
> config flag.
> 2. So the patch does not have effect on platforms not using the generic
> GSI support, including x86/ia64.
>
> If support for this is needed outside platforms using the generic GSI
> implementation, we can move these APIs out to their own source file
> and eliminate the CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI conditionality.
I think is fine because ACPI_GENERIC_GSI is not for x86 at now, please
send out the patch then we can discuss.
Thanks
Hanjun
>
> I'll send the new patch, hopefully some time tomorrow, but please let
> me know if you have concerns with this approach.
>
> Thanks,
> Agustin
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-12 14:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-28 20:48 [PATCH V6 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver Agustin Vega-Frias
2016-10-28 20:48 ` Agustin Vega-Frias
2016-10-28 20:48 ` [PATCH V6 1/3] ACPI: Retry IRQ conversion if it failed previously Agustin Vega-Frias
2016-10-28 20:48 ` Agustin Vega-Frias
2016-10-28 20:48 ` Agustin Vega-Frias
2016-10-28 20:48 ` [PATCH V6 2/3] ACPI: Add support for ResourceSource/IRQ domain mapping Agustin Vega-Frias
2016-10-28 20:48 ` Agustin Vega-Frias
2016-11-10 2:36 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-11-10 2:36 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-11-10 15:02 ` agustinv
2016-11-10 15:02 ` agustinv at codeaurora.org
2016-11-10 17:58 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-11-10 17:58 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-11-11 13:33 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-11-11 13:33 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-11-12 3:01 ` agustinv
2016-11-12 3:01 ` agustinv at codeaurora.org
2016-11-12 14:38 ` Hanjun Guo [this message]
2016-11-12 14:38 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-11-11 13:26 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-11-11 13:26 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-11-11 13:26 ` Hanjun Guo
2016-10-28 20:48 ` [PATCH V6 3/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver Agustin Vega-Frias
2016-10-28 20:48 ` Agustin Vega-Frias
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5827297C.6000108@linaro.org \
--to=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=agross@codeaurora.org \
--cc=agustinv@codeaurora.org \
--cc=ahs3@redhat.com \
--cc=astone@redhat.com \
--cc=charles.garcia-tobin@arm.com \
--cc=cov@codeaurora.org \
--cc=gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com \
--cc=graeme.gregory@linaro.org \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=harba@codeaurora.org \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=jcm@redhat.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=mlangsdo@redhat.com \
--cc=msalter@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=timur@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.