On Monday 20 January 2014 16:08:01 Hanjun Guo wrote:Do you anticipate ISA devices on ARM64? I hope not ;-)Do you mean introduce a stub function when there is no ISA support?diff --git a/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c b/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.cMy feeling is that these are better handled in the ACPI code by not
index 3c8521d..1835b21 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c
@@ -100,6 +100,25 @@ int acpi_gsi_to_irq(u32 gsi, unsigned int *irq)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_gsi_to_irq);
+int acpi_isa_irq_to_gsi(unsigned isa_irq, u32 *gsi)
+{
+ return -1;
+}
+
+int acpi_register_ioapic(acpi_handle handle, u64 phys_addr, u32 gsi_base)
+{
+ /* TBD */
+ return -EINVAL;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_register_ioapic);
+
+int acpi_unregister_ioapic(acpi_handle handle, u32 gsi_base)
+{
+ /* TBD */
+ return -EINVAL;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_unregister_ioapic);
+
calling them on architectures that have no ISA or no IOAPIC support.
We have configuration symbols for both, so you don't have to make
it depend on CONFIG_ARM64 or CONFIG_X86.
My guess is that whatever code calls this function should be disabled
in reduced hw mode.
acpi_register_ioapic()/acpi_unregister_ioapic() will be used for IOAPICBut GIC is not hotplugged, is it? It still sounds x86 specific to me.
hotplug and GIC distributor is something like IOAPIC on x86, so I think
these two functions can be reserved for future use.