From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:48:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A3A99FB.7070807@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1zlc5jqac.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
On 06/18/09 12:27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> The only actual exception I know of is Xen's replacement of the physical
>> local APIC with a paravirtualized interrupt interface.
>>
>
> No one ever has. Xen doesn't have I/O APICs either. Not in any real
> sense. Xen just has devices that looking like I/O apics if you don't
> look close.
>
Well, if acpi_pci_irq_lookup() and friends return the right things
without having parsed the MADT and set up the secondary state, then we
should be fine either way.
acpi_irq_model gets tested in all sorts of random places, so I wonder if
we'll need to set it to ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_IOAPIC (or something else?) to
make things work properly.
Hm, and principle we just get the SCI gsi from the FADT, but there's all
that other mucking about with it in the MADT processing... Wonder what
needs to happen there...
J
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:48:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A3A99FB.7070807@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1zlc5jqac.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
On 06/18/09 12:27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> The only actual exception I know of is Xen's replacement of the physical
>> local APIC with a paravirtualized interrupt interface.
>>
>
> No one ever has. Xen doesn't have I/O APICs either. Not in any real
> sense. Xen just has devices that looking like I/O apics if you don't
> look close.
>
Well, if acpi_pci_irq_lookup() and friends return the right things
without having parsed the MADT and set up the secondary state, then we
should be fine either way.
acpi_irq_model gets tested in all sorts of random places, so I wonder if
we'll need to set it to ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_IOAPIC (or something else?) to
make things work properly.
Hm, and principle we just get the SCI gsi from the FADT, but there's all
that other mucking about with it in the MADT processing... Wonder what
needs to happen there...
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-18 19:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-12 18:22 [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 18:22 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 18:28 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-12 18:28 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-12 18:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 18:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 20:11 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-06-15 2:01 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 20:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-12 20:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 2:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-15 10:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 10:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 20:49 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-15 20:49 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-15 21:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 21:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-16 19:38 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-16 19:38 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-17 5:10 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17 5:10 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17 12:02 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17 12:02 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17 17:32 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-17 17:32 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 2:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 2:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 19:34 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 19:34 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 20:28 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 21:09 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 21:09 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19 1:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 1:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 3:10 ` [Xen-devel] " Jiang, Yunhong
2009-06-19 3:10 ` Jiang, Yunhong
2009-06-18 12:26 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 10:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 10:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 16:08 ` Len Brown
2009-06-18 19:14 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 19:14 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 19:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 19:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2009-06-18 19:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 20:39 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 22:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 22:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19 2:42 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 2:42 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 19:58 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19 19:58 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19 23:44 ` [Xen-devel] " Nakajima, Jun
2009-06-19 23:44 ` Nakajima, Jun
2009-06-20 7:39 ` [Xen-devel] " Keir Fraser
2009-06-20 7:39 ` Keir Fraser
2009-06-20 8:21 ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 8:21 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 8:57 ` [Xen-devel] " Tian, Kevin
2009-06-20 8:57 ` Tian, Kevin
2009-06-20 10:22 ` [Xen-devel] " Keir Fraser
2009-06-20 10:22 ` Keir Fraser
2009-06-20 8:18 ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 8:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 5:32 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-19 5:32 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-19 5:50 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 5:50 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 7:52 ` [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs justbecause " Jan Beulich
2009-06-19 7:52 ` Jan Beulich
2009-06-19 8:16 ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 8:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 3:58 ` [Xen-devel] " Yinghai Lu
2009-06-20 3:58 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-20 5:40 ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 5:40 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 5:58 ` [Xen-devel] " Yinghai Lu
2009-06-20 5:58 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-18 22:51 ` [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because " Maciej W. Rozycki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A3A99FB.7070807@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.