Re: Defining polarity and trigger mode for static interrupts in _PRT

[Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:08:13 +0100
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:

> [ +Sinan ]
> 
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:59:17PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > Thanks, Marc! It works, I tested on current X-Gene platforms that uses
> > > GICv2 and GICv2m.
> > > 
> > > Will you commit this change? It will be a huge help as going with
> > > interrupt link will require firmware change.  
> > 
> > Not for the time being. We now have an understanding of *why* things do
> > not work, but Lorenzo seems to have a good grasp on what we can do to
> > address it correctly, and we should explore this first. If (and only if)
> > there is a consensus that firmware already does all it should, then
> > I'll turn this hack into a proper series.  
> 
> For the records, it is a discussion that already took place:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/14/923
> 
> As I have said there are already ARM64 systems with ACPI tables
> out there using PCI interrupt links; I doubt that Qualcomm systems
> allow to reconfigure the GIC interrupt pin allocated to legacy PCI
> IRQs through interrupt links _SRS (hey it is *empty* :)),
> therefore:
> 
> a) Some (the above is just an example from the mailing lists I am not
>    picking on anyone it is just for the sake of this discussion, I have
>    not dumped all ARM partners _PRT from their ACPI tables to check)
>    ACPI tables must be rewritten because they are not FW compliant
> 
> OR
> 
> b) We allow PCI interrupt links to be used for static interrupt
>    configurations
> 
> OR
> 
> c) We ignore the polarity flag (only for PCI legacy IRQs ? I wonder
>    how GIC code can detect from which part of the kernel the interrupt
>    request is coming, unless we implement an ACPI-PCI-legacy-IRQ-special
>    gem)
> 
> Comments ?

I'm not overly keen on (c), as it is pretty hard to find out where the
request is coming from (and the hack I previously posted opens the door
to all kind of undetected misconfiguration). We *could* use a stacked
irqchip to represent the inverter, but it feels like using a car sized
hammer to squash a tiny fly.

(b) seems like the right thing to do, but I cannot comment on whether
or not this is compliant with the specification.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.