[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7b61ba7-74e4-b436-814e-61a8e595bacd@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 21:26:37 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To: Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V13 02/13] ACPI: irq: Allow acpi_gsi_to_irq() to have an
arch-specific fallback
On 2022/6/27 19:39, Jianmin Lv wrote:
> From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
>
> It appears that the generic version of acpi_gsi_to_irq() doesn't
> fallback to establishing a mapping if there is no pre-existing
> one while the x86 version does.
>
> While arm64 seems unaffected by it, LoongArch is relying on the x86
> behaviour. In an effort to prevent new architectures from reinventing
> the proverbial wheel, provide an optional callback that the arch code
> can set to restore the x86 behaviour.
>
> Hopefully we can eventually get rid of this in the future once
> the expected behaviour has been clarified.
>
> Reported-by: Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>
Why do we need the Reported-by tag here?
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/irq.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> include/linux/acpi.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
The rest is looking good to me,
Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Tested-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Thanks
Hanjun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists