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