Hi Mark,
On 21 March 2017 at 02:09, Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:57:58AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
On 18 March 2017 at 04:01, Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:50:15AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org 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?
I think we may can use "Timer Flags", because all the GSIV come with a flag, if we can define a bit field called "valid" for all GSIV
Bit Field Bit Offset Number of bits Description Valid 31 1 This bit indicates the validity of the timer interrupt 1: Interrupt is valid 0: Interrupt is invalid Then we don't need to test the value of GSIV, just test this bit instead.
Just my thought, hope this makes sense to all of you :-)
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.