On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 03:45:35AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
[...]
> >> +/*
> >> + * success: return IRQ number (>0)
> >> + * failure: return =< 0
> >> + */
> >> +int acpi_register_gsi(struct device *dev, u32 gsi, int trigger, int
> >> polarity)
> >> +{
> >> + unsigned int irq;
> >> + unsigned int irq_type;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * ACPI have no bindings to indicate SPI or PPI, so we
> >> + * use different mappings from DT in ACPI.
> >> + *
> >> + * For FDT
> >> + * PPI interrupt: in the range [0, 15];
> >> + * SPI interrupt: in the range [0, 987];
> >> + *
> >> + * For ACPI, GSI should be unique so using
> >> + * the hwirq directly for the mapping:
> >> + * PPI interrupt: in the range [16, 31];
> >> + * SPI interrupt: in the range [32, 1019];
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> + 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.
Lorenzo
--
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/
