From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 16/21] irqchip: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:11:41 +0000 Message-ID: <20150311231141.GG21998@io.lakedaemon.net> References: <1426077587-1561-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1426077587-1561-17-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Grant Likely Cc: Hanjun Guo , Thomas Gleixner , Sudeep Holla , Graeme Gregory , Suravee Suthikulanit , linaro-acpi , Jon Masters , Lorenzo Pieralisi , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Marc Zyngier , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Mark Brown , Tomasz Nowicki , ACPI Devel Mailing List , Ashwin Chaugule , Timur Tabi , Arnd Bergmann , Robert Richter , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradea List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hey Grant, On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 06:04:50PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > On 11 Mar 2015 12:42, "Hanjun Guo" wrote: > > > > From: Tomasz Nowicki > > > > ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to > > parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor > > addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware > > abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2. > > > > NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 basic functionality. > > While now simple GICv2 init call is used, any further GIC features > > require generic infrastructure for proper ACPI irqchip initialization. > > That mechanism and stacked irqdomains to support GICv2 MSI/virtualization > > extension, GICv3/4 and its ITS are considered as next steps. > > > > CC: Jason Cooper > > CC: Marc Zyngier > > CC: Thomas Gleixner > > BTW, Thomas is taking a bit of a break, do he is unlikely to give an ack > here in a timely manner. I've not heard from Jason. Personally, I think we > can proceed without their ack if everything else is in order (heck, I used > to help with the irq subsystem, use me as an ack of you want). The patch is > low impact and only had effect for ARM ACPI builds. I'm not talking much, but I am tracking and collecting everything for irqchip. We do have some other changes in this driver this time around. So it'd be nice if I could take this. I had reached out to Olof for his thoughts on this and he hasn't had enough cycles to look at it. iirc, Marc reviewed a previous version and was happy with the changes. My only question I had for Olof I'll put below: > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c b/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c > > index 0fe2f71..afd1af3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ > > * warranty of any kind, whether express or implied. > > */ > > > > +#include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > @@ -26,4 +27,6 @@ extern struct of_device_id __irqchip_of_table[]; > > void __init irqchip_init(void) > > { > > of_irq_init(__irqchip_of_table); > > + > > + acpi_irq_init(); > > } Is this in line with Olof's idea that providing a dtb would override ACPI? I have no strong opinion on the matter personally. I haven't been able to follow the ACPI discussion as closely as I would have liked, what with the new job and all. Just let me know and I can pull it in with other GIC changes for this cycle. I'll do a topic branch in case other branches need to depend on this. thx, Jason.