From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:40:43 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 06/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce some PCI functions when
 PCI is enabled
In-Reply-To: <201401201939.53035.arnd@arndb.de>
References: <1389961514-13562-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <4387274.ri38HmFxAV@wuerfel> <52DD2F23.2010109@linaro.org>
 <201401201939.53035.arnd@arndb.de>
Message-ID: <52DDEC3B.1000208@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 2014-1-21 2:39, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 20 January 2014, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> acpi_register_ioapic()/acpi_unregister_ioapic() will be used for IOAPIC
>>>> hotplug and GIC distributor is something like IOAPIC on x86, so I think
>>>> these two functions can be reserved for future use.
>>> But GIC is not hotplugged, is it? It still sounds x86 specific to me.
>>
>> Well, if we want to do physical CPU hotplug on ARM/ARM64 (maybe years 
>> later?),
>> then GIC add/remove is needed because we have to remove GIC
>> on the SoC too when we remove the physical CPU.
> 
> In general, I recommend not planning for the future in kernel code when you
> don't know what is going to happen. It's always easy enough to change
> things once you get there, as long as no stable ABI is involved.

Ok, I agree with you.

> 
> I just looked at the caller of these functions, and found a self-contained
> PCI driver in drivers/pci/ioapic.c, which uses two sepate PCI classes for
> ioapic and ioxapic. I think it's a safe assumption to say that even if we
> get ARM CPU+GIC hotplug, that would not use the same ioapic driver. This
> driver is currently marked X86-only, and that should probably stay this way,
> so you won't need the hooks.

Will find a suitable way to fix that in next version, thanks for you comments :)

Hanjun