From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo) Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 22:19:54 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 03/11] irqchip / GIC: Add GIC version support in ACPI MADT In-Reply-To: References: <1431953961-22706-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1431953961-22706-4-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> Message-ID: <555DE98A.2000909@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2015?05?21? 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? For 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