Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <4f167ee7-ad50-d66c-8bd7-811fa0e83cfd@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 20:17:07 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mailbox: pcc: rename platform interrupt bit macro
 name
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
CC:     <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <rafael@kernel.org>, <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        <wanghuiqiang@huawei.com>, <zhangzekun11@huawei.com>,
        <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>, <tanxiaofei@huawei.com>,
        <guohanjun@huawei.com>, <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>,
        <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>, <huangdaode@huawei.com>
References: <20221110015034.7943-1-lihuisong@huawei.com>
 <20221110015034.7943-2-lihuisong@huawei.com>
 <20221110102528.6kuznowxtqkouvlb@bogus>
From:   "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221110102528.6kuznowxtqkouvlb@bogus>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


在 2022/11/10 18:25, Sudeep Holla 写道:
> 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.
Got it, thanks.
>
> 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.
@Rafael, what do you think?
>