[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3667410.80mLyhGuXy@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 23:26:34 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] ACPI probing infrastructure
On Friday, September 04, 2015 06:06:47 PM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> IRQ controllers and timers are the two types of device the kernel
> requires before being able to use the device driver model.
>
> ACPI so far lacks a proper probing infrastructure similar to the one
> we have with DT, where we're able to declare IRQ chips and
> clocksources inside the driver code, and let the core code pick it up
> and call us back on a match. This leads to all kind of really ugly
> hacks all over the arm64 code and even in the ACPI layer.
>
> It turns out that providing such a probing infrastructure is rather
> easy, and provides a much deserved cleanup in both the arch code, the
> GIC driver, and the architected timer driver.
Since I'm not familiar with the DT probing infrastructure mentioned above,
can you please explain to me (possibly at a high level), how it is supposed
to work in the ACPI case?
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists