[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711171126270.7700@nanos>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:38:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Vikas C Sajjan <vikas.cha.sajjan@....com>
cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kkamagui@...il.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] acpi/x86: Fix improper handling of SCI INT for
platforms supporting only IOAPIC mode
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017, Vikas C Sajjan wrote:
> The platforms which support only IOAPIC mode, pass the SCI information
> above the legacy space (0-15) via the FADT mechanism and not via MADT.
> In such cases the mp_override_legacy_irq() used by acpi_sci_ioapic_setup()
> to register SCI interrupts fails for interrupts >= 16, since it is meant to
> handle only legacy space and throws error "Invalid bus_irq %u for legacy
> override". Hence add a new function to handle SCI interrupts >= 16 and
> invoke it conditionally in acpi_sci_ioapic_setup().The code duplication
> due to this new function will be cleaned up in a separate patch.
This reads way better, but I have a small nit pick. In the example I gave
you there were multiple paragraphs on purpose to separate the different
parts. So if I just split the above lump into separate paragraphs:
[1]
The platforms which support only IOAPIC mode, pass the SCI information
above the legacy space (0-15) via the FADT mechanism and not via MADT.
[2]
In such cases the mp_override_legacy_irq() used by acpi_sci_ioapic_setup()
to register SCI interrupts fails for interrupts >= 16, since it is meant to
handle only legacy space and throws error "Invalid bus_irq %u for legacy
override".
[3]
Hence add a new function to handle SCI interrupts >= 16 and
invoke it conditionally in acpi_sci_ioapic_setup().
[4]
The code duplication due to this new function will be cleaned up in a
separate patch.
then this is clearly structured:
[1] describes the context.
[2] describes the failure
[3] describes the solution
[4] is an extra note to tell the reviewer/reader that you are aware of the
code duplication and this is addressed later.
No need to resend. I can do that when picking it up.
> Co-developed-by: Sunil V L <sunil.vl@....com>
I had a discussion with Greg about this tag which resulted in a patch so
it should be soon part of the official documentation:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171116132309.GA8449@kroah.com
We agreed that both authors should add their Signed-off-by to document that
the work conforms with the Developer Certificate of Origin. I'll add that
if that's ok for you.
Thanks for following up!
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists