[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56686037.70109@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 12:09:11 -0500
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>, cov@...eaurora.org,
jcm@...hat.com, helgaas@...nel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction
On 12/9/2015 11:59 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> + if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
>> > + polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>> > + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>> > + else
>> > + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>> > +
>> > + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
> Why not to change in place? I think a common sense rule is not to
> change something existing if it doesn't add any significant value.
>
Sorry, I didn't understand what you mean. Are you asking why we are
changing lines like above?
If yes, acpi_irq_penalty used to be an array of 256 entries. Now,
acpi_irq_penalty doesn't exist anymore as it was replaced with a linklist.
> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>
--
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