On Wed, 28 May 2014, Jiang Liu wrote: > On 2014/5/28 3:58, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > So you have these cases covered here: > > > > 1) The ACPI case of secondary ioapics. You only have the strict 1:1 > > mapping for the first ioapic > > > > 2) The gsi < NR_IRQS_LEGACY case where you have two options: > > > > a) Let the core create a random virq number if ioapic_identity_map > > is 0 > > > > ioapic_identity_map is only set by SFI and devicetree > > > > So in all other cases we fall into that code path for all > > legacy interrupts. So how is that supposed to work lets say for > > i8042 which has hardcoded irq 1 and 12? > > > > irq_create_mapping(1) > > > > hint = 1 % nr_irqs; --> 1 > > virq = irq_alloc_desc_from(hint, of_node_to_nid(domain->of_node)); > > > > This returns something >= 16, because the irq descriptors > > for 0-15 (LEGACY) are allocated already. > > > > The pin association works, but how is the i8042 driver supposed > > to figure out that it should request the virq >=16 which was > > created instead of the hardcoded 1 ? > This is used to work around special non-ISA interrupts with GSI below > NR_IRQS_LEGACY. The original code for the special case is: > /* > * Provide an identity mapping of gsi == irq except on truly > * weird platforms that have non isa irqs in the first 16 gsis. > */ > return gsi >= NR_IRQS_LEGACY ? gsi : gsi_top + gsi; That looks really, really wrong. What's wrong with assigning that irq irq number on those platforms? The weird stuff is SFI and devicetree, if I understand your code correctly. So if those platforms do not have actual legacy irqs, what's wrong with giving out the legacy numbers? > We have one path to handle ISA IRQs before calling > alloc_irq_from_domain() as below: > if (idx >= 0 && test_bit(mp_irqs[idx].srcbus, mp_bus_not_pci)) > return mp_irqs[idx].srcbusirq; Ok. > > /* We can't set this earlier, because we need to calibrate the timer */ > > legacy_pic = &null_legacy_pic; > I haven't figured out the story behind the comment yet:( Sebastian gave some insight. > > Why do we need strict mappings in the non ACPI case for all ioapic > > pins? What's so different about ACPI? Or is this just to avoid > > breaking the existing SFI/devicetree stuff. If that's the reason I'm > > fine with it, but ... > It's to avoid breaking SFI/intel_mid stuff. intel_mid assumes IRQ > number equals to pin number and use pci_dev->irq to save both IRQ > number and pin number. Fair enough. Thanks, tglx -- 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
