[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221110102528.6kuznowxtqkouvlb@bogus>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:25:28 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, rafael@...nel.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, wanghuiqiang@...wei.com,
zhangzekun11@...wei.com, wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com,
tanxiaofei@...wei.com, guohanjun@...wei.com, xiexiuqi@...wei.com,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, huangdaode@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mailbox: pcc: rename platform interrupt bit macro
name
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 09:50:32AM +0800, Huisong Li wrote:
> Currently, the name of platform interrupt bit macro, ACPI_PCCT_DOORBELL,
> is not very appropriate. The doorbell is generally considered as an action
> when send mailbox data. Actually, the macro value comes from Platform
> Interrupt in Platform Communications Channel Global Flags. If the bit is
> '1', it means that the platform is capable of generating an interrupt to
> indicate completion of a command.
>
This is touching ACPICA header file, so it must be submitted to ACPICA
separately following the guidelines in the github and imported into the
kernel.
However, I don't see any point in this change. Yes the language "doorbell"
is not used in this particular context in the spec, but it is implicit from
other parts. I am not opposing the change though if Rafael is OK and ACPICA
project accepts it.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists