On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:12:05AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 03:45:35AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > >> + if (trigger == ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE && > > >> + polarity == ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW) > > >> + irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING; > > >> + else if (trigger == ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE && > > >> + polarity == ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH) > > >> + irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING; > > >> + else if (trigger == ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE && > > >> + polarity == ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW) > > >> + irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW; > > >> + else if (trigger == ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE && > > >> + polarity == ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH) > > >> + irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH; > > >> + else > > >> + irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_NONE; > > >> + > > >> + /* > > >> + * Since only one GIC is supported in ACPI 5.0, we can > > >> + * create mapping refer to the default domain > > >> + */ > > >> + irq = irq_create_mapping(NULL, gsi); > > >> + if (!irq) > > >> + return irq; > > >> + > > >> + /* Set irq type if specified and different than the current one */ > > >> + if (irq_type != IRQ_TYPE_NONE && > > >> + irq_type != irq_get_trigger_type(irq)) > > >> + irq_set_irq_type(irq, irq_type); > > >> + return irq; > > >> +} > > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_register_gsi); > > > I see you've still got this buried in the arch code. Is there any plan to > > > move it out, as I moaned about this in the last version of the series and > > > nothing seems to have changed? > > > > Ah, sorry. Last time when I was in Hongkong for LCA this Feb, I > > discussed with Lorenzo and he had a look into that too, he also met some > > obstacles to do that, so Lorenzo said that he will talk to you about > > this (Lorenzo, correct me if I'm wrong due to hearing problems of much > > noise in that room where we were talking). > > > > Anyway, if we move those functions to core code, such as irqdomain code, > > which will be compiled for x86 too, we can only set those functions as > > _weak, or we guard with them as #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64 ... #endif, so for > > me, it's really not a big deal to move those code out of arch/arm64, but > > I'm still open for suggestions if you can do that in a proper way. > > You heard me clear and sound in HK, Will has a point and I looked into > this. Code is generic but not enough to be useful on other arches at > the moment, I need more time to look into this and see if we can move > this code to acpi core in a way that makes sense, to have, as you say, > a "default" implementation. Yeah, just something guarded by a CONFIG option (probably not ARM64 though) would be enough, I think. Nothing too fancy. Will -- 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
