On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 08:40:08AM +0100, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 15.09.2014 18:42, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 05:16:21PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> >> On 09/15/2014 11:01 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 03:00:12PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >>>> index 5b3546b..9869377 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> >>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> >>>> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
> >>>> #include <linux/smp.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
> >>>>
> >>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
> >>>> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
> >>>> @@ -312,6 +313,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> >>>> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
> >>>> + acpi_status status;
> >>>> + acpi_size tbl_size;
> >>>> + int err;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
> >>>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> >>>> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
> >>>> + return;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> >>>> + if (err)
> >>>> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
> >>>> +
> >>>> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
> >>>> +}
> >>>
> >>> Maybe this was discussed already but why does this function need to live
> >>> under arch/arm64? Isn't the driver code more appropriate?
>
> There will be another call here for GICv3 so this function will merge
> common logic for them. As Jon pointed out, we are planning to add ACPI
> flag which indicates GICv3 or GICv2(m) IRQ controller in advance.
We have GIC stuff for ACPI scattered around the kernel
(arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c, drivers/acpi/processor_core.c,
drivers/irqchip/). It would be nicer if we find some common place for
them, even if that is something under drivers/acpi/ or drivers/irqchip/
(we even have an irq-gic-common.c).
> >> Well there's two halves to this, right? There's the MADT parsing/setup,
> >> which is architecture specific, and then there's the GIC irqchip
> >> initialization which lives under drivers.
> >
> > I think it gets worse, this function is called from irqchip_init(). I
> > would have been slightly happier if it was called from the arm64
> > init_IRQ(). But putting an ARM specific GIC initialisation call in a
> > generic irqchip_init() just looks weird. Can we do anything better here?
>
> Yes this was discussed, please have a look at:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/1/555
> We had this in init_IRQ() in previous patch set, then we got feedback
> irqchip_init() is more appropriate. We can move it back to init_IRQ()
> and I am sold on this.
The irqchip_init() is indeed the place to call other interrupt
controller initialisation functions but what I don't particularly like
is calling the GIC one directly while the OF ones are checked against a
match string. For GICv3 and later, do you plan to use the same
acpi_gic_init() functions? Otherwise we could do something like
ACPI_IRQCHIP_DECLARE() similar to the OF ones and a common function that
probes whatever is built into the kernel.
--
Catalin
--
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
