[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dda55738-d52b-1cdd-8973-8dea3506a835@codeaurora.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 13:49:17 -0400
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: 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 9/30/2016 5:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> >> What's the drawback, if any?
>> >
>> > I don't see any drawback to be honest.
> I'd go for it then, if Bjorn doesn't hate it.
>
I posted a follow up patch a minute ago.
[PATCH 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"
[PATCH 2/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
[PATCH 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"
Can we have some testing coverage? and eventually have tested-by?
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists