[PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
marc.zyngier at arm.com
Fri Sep 5 02:47:30 PDT 2014
On 03/09/14 15:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 September 2014 11:26:14 Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>> On 02.09.2014 15:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>>>> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>>>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>>>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>>> + acpi_gic_init();
>>>>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>>>>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>>>> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
>>> No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
>>> we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
>>> "because we're different" is the right way.
>>> There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
>>> different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
>>> put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
>>>> Having only GICv2, it would work. Considering we would do the same for
>>>> GICv3 (arm-gic-v3.h) there will be register name conflicts for both
>>>> headers inclusion:
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h>
>>>> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
>>>> if (err)
>>>> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>>> if (err)
>>>> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>>> So instead of changing register names prefix, I choose new header will
>>>> be less painfully.
>>> Yes, and this is exactly why I pushed back on that last time. I'll
>>> continue saying that interrupt controllers should be self-probing, with
>>> ACPI as they are with DT.
>>> Even with the restrictions of ACPI and SBSA, we end-up with at least 2
>>> main families of interrupt controllers (GICv2 and GICv3), both with a
>>> number of "interesting" variations (GICv2m and GICv4, to only mention
>>> those I'm directly involved with).
>>> I can safely predict that the above will become a tangled mess within 18
>>> months, and the idea of littering the arch code with a bunch of
>>> hardcoded "if (blah())" doesn't fill me with joy and confidence.
>>> In summary: we have the infrastructure already, just use it.
>> We had that discussion but I see we still don't have consensus here. It
>> would be good to know our direction before we prepare next patch
>> version. Arnd any comments on this from you side?
> I still prefer being explicit here for the same reason I mentioned earlier:
> I want it to be very clear that we don't support arbitrary irqchips other
> than the ones in the APCI specification. The infrastructure exists on DT
> because we have to support a large number of incompatible irqchips.
I'm not suggesting that we should support more than the ACPI spec says.
And that's certainly the whole point of a spec, isn't it? ACPI says what
we support, and we're not going any further. I'm just saying that we
shouldn't make the maintenance burden heavier, and the code nothing
short of disgusting. Using our current infrastructure doesn't mean we're
going to support GIcv2.37.
> In particular, the ACPI tables describing the irqchip have no way to
> identify the GIC at all, if I read the spec correctly, you have to
> parse the tables, ioremap the registers and then read the ID to know
> if you have GICv1/v2/v2m/v3/v4. There doesn't seem to be any "device"
> for the GIC that a hypothetical probe function would be based on.
This is not the way I read the spec. Table 5-46 (Interrupt Controller
Structure) tells you if you have a CPU interface (GICv1/v2) or a
redistributor (GICv3/v4). That's enough to know whether or not you
should carry on probing a particular controller.
The various GIC versions don't really have a unified memory map anyway
(well, none that you can rely on), and you really have to rely on ACPI
to tell you what you have.
> It does seem wrong to parse the tables in the irq-gic.c file though:
> that part can well be common across the various gic versions and then
> call into either irq-gic.c or irq-gic-v3.c for the version specific
> parts. Whether we put that common code into drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c,
> drivers/irqchip/gic-common.c, drivers/irqchip/irq-acpi-gic.c or
> drivers/acpi/irq-gic.c I don't care at all.
I don't think so you can make that common code very easily. The
information required by both drivers is organized differently.
If it was, I'd have done that for the DT binding.
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
More information about the linux-arm-kernel