Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756489AbcKKNoA (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:44:00 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.83.42]:34739 "EHLO mail-pg0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754206AbcKKNn6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:43:58 -0500 Message-ID: <5825CAFE.2080005@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 21:43:26 +0800 From: Hanjun Guo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fu Wei , Mark Rutland CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Daniel Lezcano , Thomas Gleixner , Marc Zyngier , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Sudeep Holla , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Linaro ACPI Mailman List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , rruigrok@codeaurora.org, "Abdulhamid, Harb" , Christopher Covington , Timur Tabi , G Gregory , Al Stone , Jon Masters , Wei Huang , Arnd Bergmann , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Leo Duran , Wim Van Sebroeck , Guenter Roeck , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Tomasz Nowicki , Christoffer Dall , Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 4/9] acpi/arm64: Add GTDT table parse driver References: <1475086637-1914-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <1475086637-1914-5-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org> <20161020163719.GC27598@leverpostej> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1954 Lines: 65 On 10/26/2016 07:10 PM, Fu Wei wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On 21 October 2016 at 00:37, Mark Rutland 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@linaro.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? :-) > >> (b) we should drop the check above > > yes, if zero is a valid GSIV, this makes sense. > >> (c) we should report the spec issue to the ASWG >> >>> +/* >>> + * acpi_gtdt_c3stop - got c3stop info from GTDT >>> + * >>> + * Returns 1 if the timer is powered in deep idle state, 0 otherwise. >>> + */ >>> +bool __init acpi_gtdt_c3stop(void) >>> +{ >>> + struct acpi_table_gtdt *gtdt = acpi_gtdt_desc.gtdt; >>> + >>> + return !(gtdt->non_secure_el1_flags & ACPI_GTDT_ALWAYS_ON); >>> +} >> >> It looks like this can differ per interrupt. Shouldn't we check the >> appropriate one? > > yes, I think you are right. I think Mark already clarified this it's a global flag which defined in the spec, and we don't need to update it. Thanks Hanjun