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

[Tomasz Nowicki]

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@xxxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/