On Thursday 27 April 2006 20:13, Brown, Len wrote: > > >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. > > I don't propose reverting the IRQ re-name patch and breaking the > big iron
It would break VIA, not the big iron. The big iron is just broken by not applying the new patch. > without replacing it with something else that works. Sure a lot of users would be unhappy if VIA didn't work anymore. > My point is that the re-name patch has added unnecessary maintenance > complexity to the 99.9% of systems that it runs on. We pay that price > in several ways, including mis-understandings about what devices > are on what irqs, and mis-understandings about how the code is > supposed to work. Undoubtedly it would be cleaner to not have such hacks, but do you have a better proposal to make VIA work? -Andi - 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
