[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1010091407170.2640@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:08:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/47] Sparse irq rework
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 10/08/2010 11:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> irq = pin_2_irq(idx, apic_id, pin);
> >>
> >> + /* only handle fall out from setup_IO_APIC_irqs() */
> >
> > What's the fallout ? And why are we coming here in the first place
> > when the irq is < 16 ?
>
> setup_IO_APIC_irqs only handle apic_id == 0 or apic_id > 0 but irq < 16 via acpi override.
>
> it seems IBM's system have apic_id == 1, and sci irq is using 30.
>
> so at that time add that setup_IO_APIC_irq_extra() to workaround it.
> but it seems we set that two time when irq < 16.
Hmm. Ok. Thanks for figuring it out.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists