On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:13:54PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 03:52:47PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 29/03/17 14:00, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > On 03/29/2017 08:38 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 07:52:48PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > >>> Hi Lorenzo, > > >>> > > >>> On 03/29/2017 06:14 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > >>>> Hi Hanjun, Marc, > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:40:05PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > >>>>> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> For devices connecting to ITS, the devices need to identify themself > > >>>>> through a dev id; this dev id is represented in the IORT table in named > > >>>>> component node [1] for platform devices, so this patch adds code that > > >>>>> scans the IORT table to retrieve the devices' dev id. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Leveraging the iort_node_map_platform_id() IORT API, add a new function > > >>>>> call, iort_pmsi_get_dev_id() and use it in its_pmsi_prepare() to allow > > >>>>> retrieving dev id in ACPI platforms. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [1]: https://static.docs.arm.com/den0049/b/DEN0049B_IO_Remapping_Table.pdf > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> [lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx: rewrote commit log] > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> > > >>>>> Tested-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> Tested-by: Wei Xu <xuwei5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> Tested-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> > > >>>>> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> > > >>>>> Cc: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> --- > > >>>>> drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its-platform-msi.c | 3 ++- > > >>>>> include/linux/acpi_iort.h | 5 +++++ > > >>>>> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >>>> > > >>>> To simplify merging ACPI/IRQCHIP changes via different trees it > > >>>> would be good to split this patch; I am not sure what's the best > > >>>> way of handling it though given that we would end up in a merge > > >>>> ordering dependency anyway (ie we can create an empty stub > > >>>> for iort_pmsi_get_dev_id() but that would create a dependency > > >>>> between ARM64 and irqchip trees anyway). > > >>> > > >>> The first 12 patches for ACPI platform MSI and later 3 patches > > >>> for mbigen have no "physical" dependency, which means they can > > >>> be merged and compiled independently, they only have functional > > >>> dependency only. > > >>> > > >>> We already had SAS, XGE, USB and even UART drivers depend on > > >>> the mbigen ACPI support, so I don't think the dependency of ACPI > > >>> platform MSI and mbigen patches cares much if those two parts are > > >>> merged in one merge window, even they are merged independently via > > >>> different tree. > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Please let me know what's your preferred way of handling this. > > >>> > > >>> So in my opinion, they can be merged independently via ARM64 and > > >>> irqchip tree with no ordering dependency, is it OK? > > >> > > >> I am speaking about merging MBIgen AND ITS patches via IRQCHIP and > > >> ACPI/IORT for ARM64, that's why I replied to this patch. I do not > > >> think that's feasible to split patches in two separate branches > > >> without having a dependency between them. > > >> > > >> Sure, the last three patches can go via IRQCHIP but that was not > > >> my question :) > > > > > > Sorry, I misunderstood that :( > > > > > > Since it's not feasible to split patches, the best way I got is that > > > we get Marc's ack then merge it. > > > > I believe there is a way to make this work without too much hassle. I > > suggest we drop the ITS change from this patch entirely, and I instead > > queue this patch: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/commit/?h=irq/irqchip-4.12&id=e6db07d0f3b6da1f8cfd485776bfefa4fcdbfc45 > > > > That way, no dependency between the two trees. Lorenzo takes all the > > patches flagged "ACPI", I take all those flagged "irqchip" or "msi", and > > everything should be perfectly standalone. > > > > Thoughts? > > Perfect for me. Hanjun, I can cherry pick Marc's patch above, rework > this patch and post the resulting branch for everyone to have a final > test. git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lpieralisi/linux.git acpi/arm64-acpi-4.12 Please have a look and let me know if that's ok, I planned to send a PR to Catalin by the end of the week (first 7 patches up to 7fc3061df075 ("ACPI: platform: setup MSI domain for ACPI based platform device")). 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
