Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:06:25 +0100 | From | Tomasz Nowicki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support |
| |
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@arm.com> 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
| |