On Monday 20 January 2014 16:08:01 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c b/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c
> >> index 3c8521d..1835b21 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c
> >> @@ -100,6 +100,25 @@ int acpi_gsi_to_irq(u32 gsi, unsigned int *irq)
> >> }
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_gsi_to_irq);
> >>
> >> +int acpi_isa_irq_to_gsi(unsigned isa_irq, u32 *gsi)
> >> +{
> >> + return -1;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +int acpi_register_ioapic(acpi_handle handle, u64 phys_addr, u32 gsi_base)
> >> +{
> >> + /* TBD */
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_register_ioapic);
> >> +
> >> +int acpi_unregister_ioapic(acpi_handle handle, u32 gsi_base)
> >> +{
> >> + /* TBD */
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_unregister_ioapic);
> >> +
> >
> > My feeling is that these are better handled in the ACPI code by not
> > calling them on architectures that have no ISA or no IOAPIC support.
> >
> > We have configuration symbols for both, so you don't have to make
> > it depend on CONFIG_ARM64 or CONFIG_X86.
>
> Do you mean introduce a stub function when there is no ISA support?
Do you anticipate ISA devices on ARM64? I hope not ;-)
My guess is that whatever code calls this function should be disabled
in reduced hw mode.
> acpi_register_ioapic()/acpi_unregister_ioapic() will be used for IOAPIC
> hotplug and GIC distributor is something like IOAPIC on x86, so I think
> these two functions can be reserved for future use.
But GIC is not hotplugged, is it? It still sounds x86 specific to me.
Arnd
--
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
