From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/15] ACPI platform MSI support and its example mbigen Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:22:34 +0000 Message-ID: <20170206142234.GC14139@red-moon> References: <1484744105-53140-1-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <20170203183626.GB17899@red-moon> <58957C77.7070206@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:58876 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751669AbdBFOUb (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2017 09:20:31 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <58957C77.7070206@huawei.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Hanjun Guo Cc: Sinan Kaya , Marc Zyngier , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Greg KH , Tomasz Nowicki , Ma Jun , Kefeng Wang , Agustin Vega-Frias , huxinwei@huawei.com, yimin@huawei.com, linuxarm@huawei.com, Matthias Brugger , Wei Xu , Ming Lei , Hanjun Guo On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 03:02:15PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, > > On 2017/2/4 2:36, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > Hanjun, Sinan, > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 08:54:50PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >> From: Hanjun Guo > >> > >> With platform msi support landed in the kernel, and the introduction > >> of IORT for GICv3 ITS (PCI MSI) and SMMU, the framework for platform msi > >> is ready, this patch set add few patches to enable the ACPI platform > >> msi support. > >> > >> For platform device connecting to ITS on arm platform, we have IORT > >> table with the named componant node to describe the mappings of paltform > >> device and ITS, so we can retrieve the dev id and find its parent > >> irqdomain (ITS) from IORT table (simlar with the ACPI ITS support). > > Depending on how things go, I prepared a branch with the first 12 > > patches (I basically updated some logs and added some cosmetics changes) > > for testing (Hanjun please have a look in details since I may have misread > > some logs), whether or not I will send a pull request for it we shall see > > next week. > > > > Here: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lpieralisi/linux.git acpi/platform-msi > > Thanks a lot for putting them together, I fetched your git tree and > took a detail look, there is one issue in patch "msi: platform: make > platform_msi_create_device_domain() ACPI aware" which has two > "Cc: Greg KH " in the commit log > (it's in the original patch from me, my bad), others are pretty good > to me (to make sure it works I retested those patches and patches > in your branch work as before). > > BTW, patches in Lorenzo's branch have no conflicts with Agustin's > patch set + my mbigen one, so after a pull request to Rafael, could > them (Agustin's patch set + my mbigen one) go via one tree such as > Marc's one for 4.11? I know it's a little bit late but those patches > are quite self-contained, which Agustin's changes are conditional > on the ACPI_GENERIC_GSI config which is only available with > ARM64 ACPI and others (interrupt combiner and mbigen) are specific > to QC and Hisilicon platforms. > > Marc, Lorenzo, could you give some comments that how can we > proceed those patches (Agustin's patch set + my mbigen one)? > It's really critical for us, thank you very much. Ok, given that: - We have decided that from now onwards ACPI IORT patches should go via the ARM64 tree - This series does not yet handle ARM SMMU MSIs (but it has to and I want to see how this will work - waiting for spec updates) - It depends on fixes that will get merged via the v4.11 arm64 queue - We are at -rc7 and I do not think it is fair at all to ask Will and Catalin to pull this code now given that it comes out of thin air for them - Last but not least: it is not bad to take time for the dust to settle given that we merged lots of IORT code last two cycles I have decided that the whole series will be considered v4.12 material, I do not expect it to be a major disruption given that we should have a stable code base for it come v4.11-rc1 (inclusive of Agustin's key probe deferral series). Thanks, Lorenzo