From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hanjun Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] irqchip / GIC: Add GIC version support in ACPI MADT Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 22:19:54 +0800 Message-ID: <555DE98A.2000909@linaro.org> References: <1431953961-22706-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1431953961-22706-4-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:33942 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754702AbbEUOUA (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2015 10:20:00 -0400 Received: by pabru16 with SMTP id ru16so106943421pab.1 for ; Thu, 21 May 2015 07:20:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Marc Zyngier , Jason Cooper , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Jiang Liu , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Arnd Bergmann , Tomasz Nowicki , Grant Likely , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org On 2015=E5=B9=B405=E6=9C=8821=E6=97=A5 04:02, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/irq.c b/drivers/acpi/irq.c >> index 65d6b93..855ead9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/irq.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/irq.c >> @@ -32,6 +32,9 @@ void __init acpi_irqchip_init(void) >> if (acpi_disabled) >> return; >> >> + if (acpi_gic_version_init()) >> + return; > > This looks just wrong. acpi_irqchip_init() is a generic ACPI function > and now you stick a GIC specific callback into it? =46or now, acpi_irqchip_init() just introduced for GIC init, not for APIC init for x86, and I don't see the usage in the near future. > > What calls acpi_irqchip_init? I renamed it as acpi_irq_init() in the later patch, which is called in irqchip_init() in drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c to init irqchip when DT is not available. This is not a nice way, but the kernel should stay functional for each patch goes in, so I separate the patch to smaller one for easy review under that rule, does it make sense? Thanks Hanjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html