[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <565DCB1D.7030308@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:30:21 -0500
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, timur@...eaurora.org,
cov@...eaurora.org, jcm@...hat.com,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7] ACPI, PCI, irq: support IRQ numbers greater than 256
On 12/1/2015 10:30 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Not sure whether you saw my earlier response about this:
>
Sorry, I missed it.
> ACPI_MAX_IRQS is only used to size the acpi_irq_penalty[] table (and
> after your patch, to validate IRQ numbers from ACPI). But I think
> the acpi_irq_penalty[] table is a design we've outgrown. I *think*
> we only care about penalties for IRQs 0-15, so even a 256-entry
> table is more than we need.
>
> If we could make acpi_irq_penalty[] a fixed size of 16 entries or
> replace it with a linked list, I think we could get rid of
> ACPI_MAX_IRQS completely. Then the validation checks you add below
> would be unnecessary and we could handle any interrupt number
> supplied from ACPI.
>
> I think it would be really nice to get rid of the arbitrary maximum
> interrupt ID (1020).
Let me look and do some testing. I'll try to do less damage by using a
link list rather than 16 and try to replicate the existing functionality.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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