On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 08:47:49AM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Jason Cooper [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hanjun, Catalin,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:31:57PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

quoted

On 2015/3/12 13:12, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:46:39AM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

quoted

On 2015/3/12 7:11, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

Hey Grant,

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 06:04:50PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:

quoted

On 11 Mar 2015 12:42, "Hanjun Guo" [off-list ref] wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c b/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c
index 0fe2f71..afd1af3 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c

@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
  * warranty of any kind, whether express or implied.
  */

+#include <linux/acpi_irq.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/of_irq.h>
 #include <linux/irqchip.h>

@@ -26,4 +27,6 @@ extern struct of_device_id __irqchip_of_table[];
 void __init irqchip_init(void)
 {
        of_irq_init(__irqchip_of_table);
+
+       acpi_irq_init();
 }

Is this in line with Olof's idea that providing a dtb would override ACPI?

Yes, it will. Since ACPI is default OFF (disabled), if a dtb provided, and no acpi=force
passed in the early command line, dtb will be used as system configuration for
boot (dtb is always the prior one for now) [1]. In acpi_gic_init() which called by
acpi_irq_init(), it will return immediately if acpi disabled, so it will not parse
any ACPI table for device configuration.

Ok, that matches my recollection.  Thanks for refreshing my memory.  I'll apply
this on a topic branch for irqchip/gic when I return from travel.  Most likely
Friday or over the weekend.

Thank you very much! But this patch can't be applied without previous ones in this
patch set, how about you ack this patch and Catalin takes it via ARM64 tree? I'm
not sure for this, it depends on your decision.

Is this a build dependency or a boot dependency?  I only received this patch in
the series and I apologize, I'm a bit swamped atm.  Catalin, would an immutable
irqchip/gic topic branch with this in it work for you?

Jason,

For a series like this I strongly recommend you provide an ack and let
the whole series go in via a single branch. Trying to split it up only
to reassemble it again creates more work for everyone. There is also
very little likelyhood that this will create a complex conflict with
your tree.

I would prefer this approach as well since we only enable ACPI on arm64
on patch 19. If we are to rework this, we probably end up with 3
branches: one for the base ACPI, another for irqchip and yet another to
enable ACPI on arm64 (that's unless we enable APCI on arm64 but without
any irqchip support which makes it pretty useless for testing).

-- 
Catalin