On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 01:07:12PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2015/3/20 3:37, Will Deacon wrote: > > 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. > Hi Will, > > It is ARM64 related code and ACPI specific, I can come up with following code: No. It is ACPI code that can be made generic (if it is not already, apart from GIC specific comments), so IMO it should live in drivers/acpi and we can introduce a config option for that as we did for S-states and select it on arm64. Lorenzo -- 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
