On 10/26/2016 07:10 PM, Fu Wei wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 21 October 2016 at 00:37, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
As a heads-up, on v4.9-rc1 I see conflicts at least against
arch/arm64/Kconfig. Luckily git am -3 seems to be able to fix that up
automatically, but this will need to be rebased before the next posting
and/or merging.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:17:12AM +0800, fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
+static int __init map_gt_gsi(u32 interrupt, u32 flags)
+{
+ int trigger, polarity;
+
+ if (!interrupt)
+ return 0;
Urgh.
Only the secure interrupt (which we do not need) is optional in this
manner, and (hilariously), zero appears to also be a valid GSIV, per
figure 5-24 in the ACPI 6.1 spec.
So, I think that:
(a) we should not bother parsing the secure interrupt
If I understand correctly, from this point of view, kernel don't
handle the secure interrupt.
But the current arm_arch_timer driver still enable/disable/request
PHYS_SECURE_PPI
with PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI.
That means we still need to parse the secure interrupt.
Please correct me, if I misunderstand something? :-)
(b) we should drop the check above
yes, if zero is a valid GSIV, this makes sense.
(c) we should report the spec issue to the ASWG
+/*
+ * acpi_gtdt_c3stop - got c3stop info from GTDT
+ *
+ * Returns 1 if the timer is powered in deep idle state, 0 otherwise.
+ */
+bool __init acpi_gtdt_c3stop(void)
+{
+ struct acpi_table_gtdt *gtdt = acpi_gtdt_desc.gtdt;
+
+ return !(gtdt->non_secure_el1_flags & ACPI_GTDT_ALWAYS_ON);
+}
It looks like this can differ per interrupt. Shouldn't we check the
appropriate one?
yes, I think you are right.
I think Mark already clarified this it's a global flag which defined
in the spec, and we don't need to update it.
Thanks
Hanjun
--
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
