[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ea7399f8-8cfa-7671-f258-c42edd663106@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:24:05 -0700
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
ravikanth.nalla@....com, linux@...nbow-software.org,
timur@...eaurora.org, cov@...eaurora.org, jcm@...hat.com,
alex.williamson@...hat.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
agross@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, wim@....tudelft.nl,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA
interrupts
Bjorn,
On 10/18/2016 6:59 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> It seems wrong to me that we call acpi_irq_get_penalty() from
> acpi_irq_penalty_update() and acpi_penalize_isa_irq(). It seems like they
> should just manipulate acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] directly.
>
> acpi_irq_penalty_update() is for command-line parameters, so it certainly
> doesn't need the acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() information (the
> acpi_link_list should be empty at the time we process the command-line
> parameters).
>
> acpi_penalize_isa_irq() is telling us that a PNP or ACPI device is using
> the IRQ -- this should modify the IRQ's penalty, but it shouldn't depend on
> the acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() value at all.
I posted v4 with this change and also went back to the original implementation
for sharing penalty calculation whether the IRQ is ISA or PCI.
Let us know what you think.
I also realized that calculating sharing penalty while the link object is not
initialized is not right.
Sinan
--
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