On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:57:58AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote: > On 18 March 2017 at 04:01, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:50:15AM +0800, fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > I've not been able to find where the ACPI spec says that zero is not a > > valid GSIV. This may simply be an oversight/ambiguity in the spec. > > > > Is there any statement to that effect? > > you are right, zero is a valid GSIV, I will delete this check. Thanks That being the case, how does one describe a watchdog that does not have an interrupt? As I mentioned, I think this is an oversight/ambiguity in the spec tat we should address. > > My reading of SBSA is that there is one watchdog in the system. > > > > Is that not the case? > > do you mean: > --------------- > 4.2.4 Watchdogs > The base server system implements a Generic Watchdog as specified in > APPENDIX A: Generic Watchdog. > --------------- > > I am not sure about that if this is saying "we only have one SBSA > watchdog in a system" > > would you let me know where mention it? Do I miss something? My reading was that the 'a' above meant a single element. i.e. The base server system implements _a_ Generic Watchdog as specified in APPENDIX A: Generic Watchdog. Subsequently in 4.2.5, it is stated: In this scenario, the system wakeup timer or generic watchdog is still required to send its interrupt. ... which only makes sense if there is a single watchdog in the system. Perhaps this is an oversight in the specification. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
