[PATCH v10 16/21] irqchip: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support

[Grant Likely]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Jason Cooper <jason at lakedaemon.net> wrote:
> Hanjun, Catalin,
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:31:57PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2015/3/12 13:12, Jason Cooper wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:46:39AM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> >> On 2015/3/12 7:11, Jason Cooper wrote:
>> >>> Hey Grant,
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 06:04:50PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
>> >>>> On 11 Mar 2015 12:42, "Hanjun Guo" <hanjun.guo at linaro.org> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c b/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c
>> >>>>> index 0fe2f71..afd1af3 100644
>> >>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c
>> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c
>> >>>>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>> >>>>>   * warranty of any kind, whether express or implied.
>> >>>>>   */
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> +#include <linux/acpi_irq.h>
>> >>>>>  #include <linux/init.h>
>> >>>>>  #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>> >>>>>  #include <linux/irqchip.h>
>> >>>>> @@ -26,4 +27,6 @@ extern struct of_device_id __irqchip_of_table[];
>> >>>>>  void __init irqchip_init(void)
>> >>>>>  {
>> >>>>>         of_irq_init(__irqchip_of_table);
>> >>>>> +
>> >>>>> +       acpi_irq_init();
>> >>>>>  }
>> >>> Is this in line with Olof's idea that providing a dtb would override ACPI?
>> >> Yes, it will. Since ACPI is default OFF (disabled), if a dtb provided, and no acpi=force
>> >> passed in the early command line, dtb will be used as system configuration for
>> >> boot (dtb is always the prior one for now) [1]. In acpi_gic_init() which called by
>> >> acpi_irq_init(), it will return immediately if acpi disabled, so it will not parse
>> >> any ACPI table for device configuration.
>> > Ok, that matches my recollection.  Thanks for refreshing my memory.  I'll apply
>> > this on a topic branch for irqchip/gic when I return from travel.  Most likely
>> > Friday or over the weekend.
>>
>> Thank you very much! But this patch can't be applied without previous ones in this
>> patch set, how about you ack this patch and Catalin takes it via ARM64 tree? I'm
>> not sure for this, it depends on your decision.
>
> Is this a build dependency or a boot dependency?  I only received this patch in
> the series and I apologize, I'm a bit swamped atm.  Catalin, would an immutable
> irqchip/gic topic branch with this in it work for you?

Jason,

For a series like this I strongly recommend you provide an ack and let
the whole series go in via a single branch. Trying to split it up only
to reassemble it again creates more work for everyone. There is also
very little likelyhood that this will create a complex conflict with
your tree.

g.