[PATCH v7 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support

Tomasz Nowicki
2015-01-29T16:06:25Z

On 29.01.2015 16:29, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:12:08PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>>>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> irqchip_init();
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>>> + acpi_gic_init();
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>>>>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>>>>
>>>> What has been done here isn't an unusual choice. We've got stuff all
>>>> over the kernel that may or may not be implemented depending on what
>>>> the architecture supports. If the function call is renamed to
>>>> acpi_init_irq(), are you content?
>>>
>>> My (full) suggestion was to do it like we've done it for DT, and I don't
>>> think I varied much from this point of view. Yes, calling it
>>> acpi_irq_init() would be a good start, and having the ACPI-compatible
>>> irqchips to be self-probable even better.
>>>
>>> <lack-of-sleep-rant>
>>>
>>> Hell, if nobody beats me to it, maybe I'll just write that code, with
>>> proper entry points in the various GIC drivers. Yes, this is
>>> infrastructure. Maybe it is grossly overdesigned. But I really spend too
>>> much time dealing with the crap that people are happy to pile on top of
>>> the GIC code to be madly enthusiastic about the general "good enough"
>>> attitude.
>>>
>>> </lack-of-sleep-rant>
>>>
>>> Or to put it in a slightly more diplomatic way: If ACPI is to be our
>>> future, can we please make the future look a bit better?
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> As per our off-list discussion, I completely agree. We don't want to
>> be adding hack upon hack, and I will be first in line to NAK any
>> patches taking that approach. However, for this initial series, it
>> only supports exactly one GIC that can be set up by ACPI. Can we agree
>> to leave it as is in this series, with the agreement that it will be
>> replaced for v2m and v3 support with a proper pluggable initializer?
>
> Can we at least call it acpi_init_irq() and avoid #including
> gic-specific header files? IOW hide the apci_gic_init() behind some
> generically named macro until the full solution is in place.
>

Yes, we will move away gic specific bits from here.

Tomasz