[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0isjggpiSnFYy_1omEorTD6HSWe2jCsRmvugyH6qiYq2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:04:23 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ondrej Zary <linux@...nbow-software.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, wim@....tudelft.nl,
ravikanth.nalla@....com
Subject: Re: 4.7 regression: ACPI: No IRQ available for PCI Interrupt Link
[LNKD]. Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 9/30/2016 3:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> how do we feel about increasing the ISA IRQ range to 256 so that
>>> > we are safe for all SCI interrupts?
>> I'm not sure how this is related to the problem at hand. Care to elaborate?
>>
>
> Sure, let me explain.
>
[cut]
>
> I hope it makes sense now. I tend to skip details sometimes. Feel free to
> send more questions.
Thanks for the information!
IIUC, basically, what you are proposing would be to restore the old
penalizing method for IRQs in the 0-255 range and use the new approach
for the rest, right?
What's the drawback, if any?
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists