On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 07:37:24PM +0000, 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. I had a decent look and on x86/ia64 ACPI gsi mappings (PIC/IOAPIC/IOSAPIC) are buried in arch code (not saying it is nice, it is what it is at present). We can try either to move this code to ACPI layer and make it depend on CONFIG_ARM_GIC somehow, or move it to the GIC driver altogether. I have to think about this, certainly it is not generic code at present (or better it looks generic but can only work on ARM64 with GIC IRQ model). 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
