[PATCH v9 10/15] ACPI: platform-msi: retrieve dev id from IORT
hanjun.guo at linaro.org
Wed Mar 29 06:00:06 PDT 2017
On 03/29/2017 08:38 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 07:52:48PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> Hi Lorenzo,
>> On 03/29/2017 06:14 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>> Hi Hanjun, Marc,
>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:40:05PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org>
>>>> For devices connecting to ITS, the devices need to identify themself
>>>> through a dev id; this dev id is represented in the IORT table in named
>>>> component node  for platform devices, so this patch adds code that
>>>> scans the IORT table to retrieve the devices' dev id.
>>>> Leveraging the iort_node_map_platform_id() IORT API, add a new function
>>>> call, iort_pmsi_get_dev_id() and use it in its_pmsi_prepare() to allow
>>>> retrieving dev id in ACPI platforms.
>>>> : https://static.docs.arm.com/den0049/b/DEN0049B_IO_Remapping_Table.pdf
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org>
>>>> [lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com: rewrote commit log]
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei at canonical.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Wei Xu <xuwei5 at hisilicon.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya at codeaurora.org>
>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Tomasz Nowicki <tn at semihalf.com>
>>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de>
>>>> drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its-platform-msi.c | 3 ++-
>>>> include/linux/acpi_iort.h | 5 +++++
>>>> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> To simplify merging ACPI/IRQCHIP changes via different trees it
>>> would be good to split this patch; I am not sure what's the best
>>> way of handling it though given that we would end up in a merge
>>> ordering dependency anyway (ie we can create an empty stub
>>> for iort_pmsi_get_dev_id() but that would create a dependency
>>> between ARM64 and irqchip trees anyway).
>> The first 12 patches for ACPI platform MSI and later 3 patches
>> for mbigen have no "physical" dependency, which means they can
>> be merged and compiled independently, they only have functional
>> dependency only.
>> We already had SAS, XGE, USB and even UART drivers depend on
>> the mbigen ACPI support, so I don't think the dependency of ACPI
>> platform MSI and mbigen patches cares much if those two parts are
>> merged in one merge window, even they are merged independently via
>> different tree.
>>> Please let me know what's your preferred way of handling this.
>> So in my opinion, they can be merged independently via ARM64 and
>> irqchip tree with no ordering dependency, is it OK?
> I am speaking about merging MBIgen AND ITS patches via IRQCHIP and
> ACPI/IORT for ARM64, that's why I replied to this patch. I do not
> think that's feasible to split patches in two separate branches
> without having a dependency between them.
> Sure, the last three patches can go via IRQCHIP but that was not
> my question :)
Sorry, I misunderstood that :(
Since it's not feasible to split patches, the best way I got is that
we get Marc's ack then merge it.
Marc, Lorenzo, is this OK?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel