From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:42:53 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v4 14/18] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot
 support
In-Reply-To: <541710D5.3030001@redhat.com>
References: <1410530416-30200-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <1410530416-30200-15-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <20140915150136.GF5415@arm.com> <541710D5.3030001@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20140915164253.GI5415@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 05:16:21PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 09/15/2014 11:01 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 03:00:12PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >> index 5b3546b..9869377 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> >>  #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> >>  #include <linux/bootmem.h>
> >>  #include <linux/smp.h>
> >> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
> >>  
> >>  #include <asm/cputype.h>
> >>  #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
> >> @@ -312,6 +313,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> >>  		pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct acpi_table_header *table;
> >> +	acpi_status status;
> >> +	acpi_size tbl_size;
> >> +	int err;
> >> +
> >> +	status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
> >> +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> >> +		const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
> >> +
> >> +		pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
> >> +		return;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> >> +	if (err)
> >> +		pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
> >> +
> >> +	early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
> >> +}
> > 
> > Maybe this was discussed already but why does this function need to live
> > under arch/arm64? Isn't the driver code more appropriate?
> 
> Well there's two halves to this, right? There's the MADT parsing/setup,
> which is architecture specific, and then there's the GIC irqchip
> initialization which lives under drivers.

I think it gets worse, this function is called from irqchip_init(). I
would have been slightly happier if it was called from the arm64
init_IRQ(). But putting an ARM specific GIC initialisation call in a
generic irqchip_init() just looks weird. Can we do anything better here?

> 
> Jon.
> 
> 

-- 
Catalin