[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j1m4oGJfdOC8uerKc-3ksq6k2e9RdjEnk0sWmsq4RHRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:13:08 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
eric.auger@...hat.com, Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, wim@....tudelft.nl,
perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: factor in PCI possible
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
> resource requirements") omitted the initially assigned POSSIBLE penalty
> when the IRQ is active.
It would be good to say what can go wrong with that here.
> The original code would assign the POSSIBLE value divided by the number
> of possible IRQs during initialization.
>
> Later, if the IRQ is chosen as the active IRQ or if the IRQ is in use
> by ISA; additional penalties get added.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists