[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711151929200.1805@nanos>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:30:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
cc: "Sajjan, Vikas C" <vikas.cha.sajjan@....com>,
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>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Lakshminarasimha, Sunil Vishwanathpur" <sunil.vl@....com>,
"Attar, Abdul Lateef" <abdul-lateef.attar@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/acpi: Fix improper handling of SCI INT for platforms
supporting only IOAPIC mode
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Sajjan, Vikas C
> <vikas.cha.sajjan@....com> wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rjwysocki@...il.com [mailto:rjwysocki@...il.com] On Behalf Of Rafael J. Wysocki
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:51 PM
> > To: Sajjan, Vikas C <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>; Lakshminarasimha, Sunil Vishwanathpur <sunil.vl@....com>; Attar, Abdul Lateef <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?
> >
> > I can move these extra changes into a separate patch and keep only the fix in this patch.
>
> That would be useful I think in case someone wants to backport your
> fix, for example.
That would also simplify review a lot. I'll wait for that before I twist my
brain around distangling the changes.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists