[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57010864-b2f0-d230-3138-8ace484acb04@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:11:14 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linaro ACPI Mailman List <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
rruigrok@...eaurora.org, "Abdulhamid, Harb" <harba@...eaurora.org>,
Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
G Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Wei Huang <wei@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
Leo Duran <leo.duran@....com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 4/9] acpi/arm64: Add GTDT table parse driver
On 26/10/16 12:10, Fu Wei wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 21 October 2016 at 00:37, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As a heads-up, on v4.9-rc1 I see conflicts at least against
>> arch/arm64/Kconfig. Luckily git am -3 seems to be able to fix that up
>> automatically, but this will need to be rebased before the next posting
>> and/or merging.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:17:12AM +0800, fu.wei@...aro.org wrote:
>>> +static int __init map_gt_gsi(u32 interrupt, u32 flags)
>>> +{
>>> + int trigger, polarity;
>>> +
>>> + if (!interrupt)
>>> + return 0;
>>
>> Urgh.
>>
>> Only the secure interrupt (which we do not need) is optional in this
>> manner, and (hilariously), zero appears to also be a valid GSIV, per
>> figure 5-24 in the ACPI 6.1 spec.
>>
>> So, I think that:
>>
>> (a) we should not bother parsing the secure interrupt
>
> If I understand correctly, from this point of view, kernel don't
> handle the secure interrupt.
> But the current arm_arch_timer driver still enable/disable/request
> PHYS_SECURE_PPI
> with PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI.
> That means we still need to parse the secure interrupt.
> Please correct me, if I misunderstand something? :-)
That's because we can use the per-cpu timer when 32bit Linux is running
on the secure side (and we cannot distinguish between secure and
non-secure at runtime). ACPI is 64bit only, and Linux on 64bit isn't
supported on the secure side, so only registering the non-secure timer
is perfectly acceptable.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists