On Wednesday, March 04, 2015 08:21:01 PM Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 15:05 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:16:07PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Sort of. What we need is a "do not touch PIC/PIT" bit for the code that > > > tries to fall back to them in some cases (which may appear to work if > > > the hardware is physically there, but it may confuse the platform). > > > > Can "some cases" detection be nicely put into a x86_platform > > platform-specific method? > > In some cases they don't belong in x86, ACPI is also used for ARM64. > > However > > if ( has_8259_pic() ) > > is trivally 0, 1 or some platform or acpi provided method.
And which is how that should have been implemented to start with IMO. Besides, the "ACPI reduced hardware" case is kind of a red herring here, because it most likely is not the only case when we'll want has_8259_pic() to return 0 (quite likely, we'll want that on all BayTrail-based systems, for example). -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
