> I think, it is about time, not thinking via quirks as > workarounds, because all pcis (on via) are quirked, some are > quirked twice. > And we should think in programmer interrupts of via chipset, > in specific function for this propose, for me, doesn't make > sense every time VIA put other ID out, we have to add quirks > to this ID , as this was an exception. > > Thanks,
VIA's numerous pci quirks are not related to this patch. They only hit one problem with it having only 4 bits encoding their interrupt. > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 15:53 -0400, Brown, Len wrote: > > I'd rather see the original irq-renaming patch and its subsequent > > multiple via workaround patches reverted than to further complicate > > what is becoming a fragile mess. > > > > -Len There are probably better ways to control 224 possible IRQs by their total number instead of their range, and per-cpu IDTs are the better answer to the IRQ shortage altogether. But just going back to the way it was wouldn't be right I think. We were able to run 2 generations of systems only because we had this compression, other big systems benefited from it as well. Thanks, --Natalie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
