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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221110015034.7943-1-lihuisong@huawei.com> <20221110015034.7943-2-lihuisong@huawei.com>
 <20221110102528.6kuznowxtqkouvlb@bogus> <4f167ee7-ad50-d66c-8bd7-811fa0e83cfd@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <4f167ee7-ad50-d66c-8bd7-811fa0e83cfd@huawei.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 20:29:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0h82m37Li3YOfP7_8aAS3ULwzunpWZJwRPncLooPqvE-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mailbox: pcc: rename platform interrupt bit macro name
To:     "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 1:17 PM lihuisong (C) <lihuisong@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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?

Well, I wouldn't send a patch to make this change myself, but if you
really care about it, please submit an upstream ACPICA pull request in
the first place and we'll see.