[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0g8d=q1TZvacBZ_EDMjAnufQdHYkfbnkhv4kSH_FNOhDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:20:36 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Vikas C Sajjan <vikas.cha.sajjan@....com>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Seunghun Han <kkamagui@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Sunil V L <sunil.vl@....com>,
Abdul Lateef Attar <abdul-lateef.attar@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/acpi: Fix improper handling of SCI INT for platforms
supporting only IOAPIC mode
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Vikas C Sajjan
<vikas.cha.sajjan@....com> wrote:
> The platforms which support only IOAPIC mode and whose SCI INT is
> greater than 16, passes SCI INT via FADT and not via MADT int src override
> structure. In such cases current logic fails to handle it and throws error
> "Invalid bus_irq %u for legacy override". This patch handles the above
> mentioned case. While at it, also modify function mp_override_legacy_irq()
> to use the newly introduced function mp_register_ioapic_irq().
Actually, is it necessary to make this extra change here?
How complicated would it be to separate it out?
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists