On 01/24/2012 12:42 PM, Guillaume Knispel wrote: > Hi, > > I'm building a PC platform with additional non-PCI and non-ISA devices: > they are basically simple telecom chipsets connected to an SPI and an > old school parallel bus (Intel LEB bus) and GPIO pins that can be used > as interrupts through the IO APIC which exposes 40 GSI. From the point > of view of the software the SPI, LEB, and GPIO are provided by PCI > devices (in reality they are embedded controllers in an Intel SoC > 80579). Anyway I'm not sure the additional GSI are described anywhere > in whatever black magic ACPI / legacy BIOS table they could be > (but I've complete control over the FW, so I can had whatever is > needed when I know it). What is the benefit of implementing ACPI on this custom system? -Len > But as my devices are neither PCI nor ISA, I don't know how i can get > access to the custom GSI interrupt from a LKM. acpi_register_gsi() used > to be exported but is not anymore and I guess this is mandatory that > this function is called to prepare internal structures (maybe irq_desc) > and most importantly to configure to level triggering active low. > > So I'm thinking about writing black magic DSDT stuffs or whatever, > which i might be able to sort of do after reading the fabulous ACPI > specifications. Any feedback or pointer would be highly welcome. > > BTW when Linux devs says that bios writers are writing shit, yeah, they > do, and given the state of complexity of the PC platform, I'm at the > risk to do it too because I'm not supposed to delay the production of > our system by one additional year just to completely learn how the > shitty PC "standards" are supposed to work. From a more personal > point of view when I'm reading the ACPI or other related specs tainted > by MS and their desire to put GUID everywhere and other terrible ideas, > I would rather prefer being high to not endure that much pain. > > As more and more x86 systems are directly designed to run Linux and > only tested with it, with some of those (like our own) being built > by people having complete control on the board and firmware (Coreboot), > maybe it is time to define a legacy-free variant of the x86 plateform > (especially on the FW/OS interface) for the free software and free > hardware design world, so that we aren't restricted and slowed down by > retro-compatible technologies dedicated at running MS-DOS and created > with the explicit goal to be hard to use for anything else than > Windows NT. > > Cheers! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
