Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-145441-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231219174526.2235150-1-sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
 <CAJZ5v0j6Veze8xDFKTbVZ5=WAfmLdeJ8NXRnh9kwCZgyaDdgew@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZbiQ/tO/odnJCBD1@sunil-laptop> <CAJZ5v0gnH0uPEM0q9VzJOg2Z_7bOP9XdQbOttpRtnkLGej45Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zh1DP8YnjPlie4+S@sunil-laptop>
In-Reply-To: <Zh1DP8YnjPlie4+S@sunil-laptop>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:18:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0icHu1hv_DQDRFh54nD8gde8CfQUERAO=dyasnfp5qO-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/17] RISC-V: ACPI: Add external interrupt
 controller support
To: Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, 
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, 
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, 
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, 
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, 
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, 
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Haibo Xu <haibo1.xu@intel.com>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>, Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>, 
	=?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>, 
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi,

[cut]

> >
> Hi Rafael,
>
> I found that _DEP is better than fw_devlink for ACPI since it works
> during scan itself. For ex: the way PCI host bridges are scanned in
> ACPI, PNP device handling. While some hacky solution could be done like
> I did in v3 (pnp_irq() changes), _DEP way seems much better.
>
> So, we decided to go with your suggested approach and defined namespace
> devices for PLIC and APLIC required to create dependency mechanism.
> However, there are concerns that every device will have to add _DEP now
> and whether it is intended for this use case. Also, actually the
> dependency is already available in the form of GSI number mapping.
> Hence, instead of explicit dependency, we would like to create implicit
> dependency. So, I will send RFC v4 series with those changes. Please
> help us with feedback. If you could provide quick high level go/no-go,
> that will help us a lot since we need to finalize the spec whether to
> mandate _DEP or not.
>
> I request you to provide some high level feedback in the RFC v4 I am
> going to send.

I will, thank you!