From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751228AbdAPOv2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:51:28 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56010 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750817AbdAPOvZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:51:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:53:12 +0000 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Hanjun Guo Cc: Marc Zyngier , Agustin Vega-Frias , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , harba@codeaurora.org, Jason Cooper , Graeme Gregory , Jon Masters , Timur Tabi , Mark Salter , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , rjwysocki@gmail.com, astone@redhat.com, ACPI Devel Maling List , Mark Langsdorf , Christopher Covington , Andy Gross , Thomas Gleixner , Charles Garcia Tobin , Al Stone , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver Message-ID: <20170116145312.GB24103@red-moon> References: <1481753438-3905-1-git-send-email-agustinv@codeaurora.org> <16e3b40407e8072dd5b15bf7e65afb18@codeaurora.org> <266105963441d1cdddeaf40c4b78c239@codeaurora.org> <8587b5ab-59b1-feb7-09d9-7ade6d433a4c@arm.com> <587CDB96.9000906@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <587CDB96.9000906@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:41:26PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2017/1/16 22:14, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 16/01/17 14:07, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote: > >> Hi Rafael, > >> > >> On 2017-01-03 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias > >>> wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop > >>>> the conditional check on the first patch? > >>>> How can we move forward on this series? > >>> Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine > >>> which hasn't happened yet. > >> Pinging again. Do you have any questions that might help with your > >> review? I have some minor changes I have to make to the driver itself > >> (patch 3) and I'd like to submit any changes you might want along with > >> those. > > I'd like to add that these two initial patches are now a prerequisite > > for Hanjun's series, so it'd be good to have an idea of where we're > > going on that front. > > Is it helpful to test patch [1-2/3] on x86 machines (with different firmware) and > an IA64 machine (surely a different version of firmware :) ) with Lorenzo's suggestion > of removing #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI for is_gsi()? If yes, I can do that as > I have such machines. Well, it is always helpful, as helpful as getting this change into -next as soon as possible, at the end of the day it is quite simple, as soon as (hopefully never) we find some firmware out there (x86/ia64) that misused the resource source field in the interrupt descriptor we will have to add that guard back, it is as simple as that. Thanks, Lorenzo