From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 21:58:01 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v14 4/9] acpi/arm64: Add GTDT table parse driver
In-Reply-To: <5825CBB5.8090104@linaro.org>
References: <1475086637-1914-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org>
 <1475086637-1914-5-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org>
 <20161020163719.GC27598@leverpostej> <5825CBB5.8090104@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <5825CE69.1000501@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 11/11/2016 09:46 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> On 10/21/2016 12:37 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As a heads-up, on v4.9-rc1 I see conflicts at least against
>> arch/arm64/Kconfig. Luckily git am -3 seems to be able to fix that up
>> automatically, but this will need to be rebased before the next posting
>> and/or merging.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:17:12AM +0800, fu.wei at linaro.org wrote:
>>> +static int __init map_gt_gsi(u32 interrupt, u32 flags)
>>> +{
>>> +    int trigger, polarity;
>>> +
>>> +    if (!interrupt)
>>> +        return 0;
>>
>> Urgh.
>>
>> Only the secure interrupt (which we do not need) is optional in this
>> manner, and (hilariously), zero appears to also be a valid GSIV, per
>> figure 5-24 in the ACPI 6.1 spec.
>>
>> So, I think that:
>>
>> (a) we should not bother parsing the secure interrupt
>> (b) we should drop the check above
>> (c) we should report the spec issue to the ASWG
>
> Sorry, I willing to do that, but I need to figure out the issue here.
> What kind of issue in detail? do you mean that zero should not be valid
> for arch timer interrupts?

OK, I think you are referring to "we don't need the secure interrupt",
correct me if I'm wrong (still in jet lag...).

Thanks
Hanjun