On 12/11/14 13:48, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
On 12 November 2014 08:32, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/11/14 20:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 11 November 2014 15:01:28 Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 11/11/14 13:18, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
On 11 November 2014 05:30, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07/11/14 14:52, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
The IRQ part of the spec seems to be under discussion (single irq per
subspace / common IRQ across all) and as you may be aware we're
working on trying it out on Juno. That'll guide the design. What I
have here is good enough to start off with and has been tested. I dont
think we should have a problem using the mailbox API for asyn tx
though, but I'd really^n prefer if we get something out there first.
That's the different and still under discussion. But you need to support
Type 1 subspace as it stands in ACPI v5.1
Why? We should only implement whatever is required to support existing
hardware,
not because something is in the spec.
Agreed. I assumed that this was tested on some hardware which adhere to
Type 1 subspace of the spec and I asked to implement interrupt mode as
it is always better compared to polling mode and current spec. has
support for the interrupts.
I do not have hardware to test the IRQ parts as of now, so the plan
was to at least get polling mode out there. That will enable a lot of
folks and will be useful as a fallback mode later on as well. We can
add IRQ mode stuff once it is tested. I dont see the point in
supporting it all from the start.
Agreed, sorry I was not clear. I didn't mean to say you need to add it
now. Since you mentioned about the ongoing proposal, I just wanted to
make it clear that there might be hardware adhering to Type 1 and if
they want to use interrupts we need to support it and that's different
from the new proposal.
Also, the existing Type1 is not sufficient for the mailbox/PCC on Juno
platform, hence the new proposal.
Just as Juno is proving that the IRQ mode in the current spec is
insufficient, we may find similar issues with other hardware as it
becomes available. It makes more sense to tackle this once we have
some hardware to test this part of PCC properly. Just because its in
the spec doesn't mean its right. ;)
Agreed. But I was just curious to know will any ACPI implementation use
the polling mode for PCC and use Type 1 subspace as is ;).
Btw, if you or anyone has any hardware to test it on, patches are more
than welcome. :)
No, unfortunately I have only Juno and it doesn't fit this Type of PCC
Subspace. Even if it fits, I need firmware/platform changes to
understand PCC. So I am currently not in a position to test this.
Regards,
Sudeep
--
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
