lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 00/15] ACPI platform MSI support and its example mbigen
    On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 03:02:15PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
    > Hi Lorenzo,
    >
    > On 2017/2/4 2:36, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
    > > Hanjun, Sinan,
    > >
    > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 08:54:50PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
    > >> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
    > >>
    > >> With platform msi support landed in the kernel, and the introduction
    > >> of IORT for GICv3 ITS (PCI MSI) and SMMU, the framework for platform msi
    > >> is ready, this patch set add few patches to enable the ACPI platform
    > >> msi support.
    > >>
    > >> For platform device connecting to ITS on arm platform, we have IORT
    > >> table with the named componant node to describe the mappings of paltform
    > >> device and ITS, so we can retrieve the dev id and find its parent
    > >> irqdomain (ITS) from IORT table (simlar with the ACPI ITS support).
    > > Depending on how things go, I prepared a branch with the first 12
    > > patches (I basically updated some logs and added some cosmetics changes)
    > > for testing (Hanjun please have a look in details since I may have misread
    > > some logs), whether or not I will send a pull request for it we shall see
    > > next week.
    > >
    > > Here:
    > >
    > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lpieralisi/linux.git acpi/platform-msi
    >
    > Thanks a lot for putting them together, I fetched your git tree and
    > took a detail look, there is one issue in patch "msi: platform: make
    > platform_msi_create_device_domain() ACPI aware" which has two
    > "Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>" in the commit log
    > (it's in the original patch from me, my bad), others are pretty good
    > to me (to make sure it works I retested those patches and patches
    > in your branch work as before).
    >
    > BTW, patches in Lorenzo's branch have no conflicts with Agustin's
    > patch set + my mbigen one, so after a pull request to Rafael, could
    > them (Agustin's patch set + my mbigen one) go via one tree such as
    > Marc's one for 4.11? I know it's a little bit late but those patches
    > are quite self-contained, which Agustin's changes are conditional
    > on the ACPI_GENERIC_GSI config which is only available with
    > ARM64 ACPI and others (interrupt combiner and mbigen) are specific
    > to QC and Hisilicon platforms.
    >
    > Marc, Lorenzo, could you give some comments that how can we
    > proceed those patches (Agustin's patch set + my mbigen one)?
    > It's really critical for us, thank you very much.

    Ok, given that:

    - We have decided that from now onwards ACPI IORT patches should go
    via the ARM64 tree
    - This series does not yet handle ARM SMMU MSIs (but it has to and I
    want to see how this will work - waiting for spec updates)
    - It depends on fixes that will get merged via the v4.11 arm64 queue
    - We are at -rc7 and I do not think it is fair at all to ask Will
    and Catalin to pull this code now given that it comes out of thin
    air for them
    - Last but not least: it is not bad to take time for the dust to
    settle given that we merged lots of IORT code last two cycles

    I have decided that the whole series will be considered v4.12
    material, I do not expect it to be a major disruption given that
    we should have a stable code base for it come v4.11-rc1 (inclusive
    of Agustin's key probe deferral series).

    Thanks,
    Lorenzo

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-02-06 15:20    [W:2.529 / U:0.396 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site