Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1220403 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-07 23:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-09-08 15:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH 1/5] acpi: Add basic device probing infrastructure "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-09-07 23:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/5] acpi: Add basic device probing infrastructure Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> - 2015-09-08 12:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/5] acpi: Add basic device probing infrastructure Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> - 2015-09-08 15:10 +0200
| From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 23:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] acpi: Add basic device probing infrastructure |
| Message-ID | <q6bPQ-gZ-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Friday, September 04, 2015 06:06:48 PM Marc Zyngier wrote: > IRQ controllers and timers are the two types of device the kernel > requires before being able to use the device driver model. > > ACPI so far lacks a proper probing infrastructure similar to the one > we have with DT, where we're able to declare IRQ chips and > clocksources inside the driver code, and let the core code pick it up > and call us back on a match. This leads to all kind of really ugly > hacks all over the arm64 code and even in the ACPI layer. > > In order to allow some basic probing based on the ACPI tables, > introduce "struct acpi_probe_entry" which contains just enough > data and callbacks to match a table, an optional subtable, and > call a probe function. A driver can, at build time, register itself > and expect being called if the right entry exists in the ACPI > table. > > A acpi_probe_device_init() is provided, taking an ACPI table > identifier, and iterating over the registered entries. What about things that are provided by the ACPI namespace (eg. via _MAT) rather than in static tables? Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 12:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q6nR0-Fh-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1220403 |
On 07/09/15 22:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 04, 2015 06:06:48 PM Marc Zyngier wrote: >> IRQ controllers and timers are the two types of device the kernel >> requires before being able to use the device driver model. >> >> ACPI so far lacks a proper probing infrastructure similar to the one >> we have with DT, where we're able to declare IRQ chips and >> clocksources inside the driver code, and let the core code pick it up >> and call us back on a match. This leads to all kind of really ugly >> hacks all over the arm64 code and even in the ACPI layer. >> >> In order to allow some basic probing based on the ACPI tables, >> introduce "struct acpi_probe_entry" which contains just enough >> data and callbacks to match a table, an optional subtable, and >> call a probe function. A driver can, at build time, register itself >> and expect being called if the right entry exists in the ACPI >> table. >> >> A acpi_probe_device_init() is provided, taking an ACPI table >> identifier, and iterating over the registered entries. > > What about things that are provided by the ACPI namespace (eg. via _MAT) rather > than in static tables? By the time we get to process non-static tables, the whole probing infrastructure (including the ACPI interpreter) should be up and running. I'm not seeing this stuff as a replacement for more dynamic things - quite the opposite. It is only to be used for early bring-up. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 15:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q6qOS-57i-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1220666 |
On 09/08/2015 05:57 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 07/09/15 22:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, September 04, 2015 06:06:48 PM Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> IRQ controllers and timers are the two types of device the kernel >>> requires before being able to use the device driver model. >>> >>> ACPI so far lacks a proper probing infrastructure similar to the one >>> we have with DT, where we're able to declare IRQ chips and >>> clocksources inside the driver code, and let the core code pick it up >>> and call us back on a match. This leads to all kind of really ugly >>> hacks all over the arm64 code and even in the ACPI layer. >>> >>> In order to allow some basic probing based on the ACPI tables, >>> introduce "struct acpi_probe_entry" which contains just enough >>> data and callbacks to match a table, an optional subtable, and >>> call a probe function. A driver can, at build time, register itself >>> and expect being called if the right entry exists in the ACPI >>> table. >>> >>> A acpi_probe_device_init() is provided, taking an ACPI table >>> identifier, and iterating over the registered entries. >> >> What about things that are provided by the ACPI namespace (eg. via _MAT) rather >> than in static tables? > > By the time we get to process non-static tables, the whole probing > infrastructure (including the ACPI interpreter) should be up and > running. I'm not seeing this stuff as a replacement for more dynamic > things - quite the opposite. It is only to be used for early bring-up. Yes, this framework is for static tables and used at boot time, sometimes quite early, which is before acpi_early_init(). But for _MAT (which is used for dynamic device configuration), it's really a good question, I think _MAT is mainly for CPU hotplug, and it's not related to this framework (for GIC init and clock source). To hot add/remove a whole ARM SoC with _MAT, I think we need more time to make the spec ready first, that's long term work, and agian it's nothing to do with this infrastructure if I understand correctly :) Thanks Hanjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web