From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752191AbbCDV3F (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:29:05 -0500
Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:54933 "HELO
	v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with SMTP id S1751462AbbCDV3C (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:29:02 -0500
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Len.Brown@intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Bypass legacy PIC and PIT on ACPI hardware reduced platform
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 22:52:38 +0100
Message-ID: <8129220.9HmyqjfodP@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.19.0+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <1425500461.3838.140.camel@linux.intel.com>
References: <54F67ACC.3010500@linux.intel.com> <20150304140555.GG3516@pd.tnic> <1425500461.3838.140.camel@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday, March 04, 2015 08:21:01 PM Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 15:05 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 03:16:07PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Sort of.  What we need is a "do not touch PIC/PIT" bit for the code that
> > > tries to fall back to them in some cases (which may appear to work if
> > > the hardware is physically there, but it may confuse the platform).
> > 
> > Can "some cases" detection be nicely put into a x86_platform
> > platform-specific method?
> 
> In some cases they don't belong in x86, ACPI is also used for ARM64.
> 
> However
> 
> 	if ( has_8259_pic() )
> 
> is trivally 0, 1 or some platform or acpi provided method.

And which is how that should have been implemented to start with IMO.

Besides, the "ACPI reduced hardware" case is kind of a red herring here,
because it most likely is not the only case when we'll want has_8259_pic()
to return 0 (quite likely, we'll want that on all BayTrail-based systems,
for example).


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.