From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756726AbdADHC3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 02:02:29 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f174.google.com ([209.85.192.174]:34607 "EHLO mail-pf0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756588AbdADHC0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 02:02:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/14] irqchip: gicv3-its: platform-msi: refactor its_pmsi_init() to prepare for ACPI To: Tomasz Nowicki , Marc Zyngier , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Lorenzo Pieralisi References: <1483363905-2806-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1483363905-2806-7-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <8cdc4bfa-18a3-b9f6-aaba-0efe1f75fb40@semihalf.com> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com, Thomas Gleixner , Greg KH , Ma Jun , Kefeng Wang , Agustin Vega-Frias , Sinan Kaya , charles.garcia-tobin@arm.com, huxinwei@huawei.com, yimin@huawei.com, Jon Masters From: Hanjun Guo Message-ID: <601cbdf2-823d-8bde-bbd9-fcc6a1c67f2c@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:02:13 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8cdc4bfa-18a3-b9f6-aaba-0efe1f75fb40@semihalf.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Tomasz, On 2017/1/3 15:41, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > Hi, > > Can we merge patch 4 & 6 into one patch so that we keep refactoring part > as one piece ? I do not see a reason to keep them separate or have patch > 5 in between. You can refactor what needs to be refactored, add > necessary functions to iort.c and then support ACPI for > irq-gic-v3-its-platform-msi.c There are two functions here, - retrieve the dev id from IORT which was DT based only; - init the platform msi domain from MADT; For each of them split it into two steps, - refactor the code for ACPI later and it's easy for review because wen can easily to figure out it has functional change or not - add ACPI functionality Does it make sense? Thanks Hanjun