[PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver

Lorenzo Pieralisi lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com
Mon Jan 16 06:53:12 PST 2017

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:41:26PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2017/1/16 22:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 16/01/17 14:07, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:
> >> Hi Rafael,
> >>
> >> On 2017-01-03 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias
> >>> <agustinv at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop
> >>>> the conditional check on the first patch?
> >>>> How can we move forward on this series?
> >>> Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine
> >>> which hasn't happened yet.
> >> Pinging again. Do you have any questions that might help with your
> >> review? I have some minor changes I have to make to the driver itself
> >> (patch 3) and I'd like to submit any changes you might want along with
> >> those.
> > I'd like to add that these two initial patches are now a prerequisite
> > for Hanjun's series, so it'd be good to have an idea of where we're
> > going on that front.
> Is it helpful to test patch [1-2/3] on x86 machines (with different firmware) and
> an IA64 machine (surely a different version of firmware :) ) with Lorenzo's suggestion
> of removing  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI for is_gsi()? If yes, I can do that as
> I have such machines.

Well, it is always helpful, as helpful as getting this change into -next
as soon as possible, at the end of the day it is quite simple, as soon
as (hopefully never) we find some firmware out there (x86/ia64) that
misused the resource source field in the interrupt descriptor we will
have to add that guard back, it is as simple as that.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list