On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:41:26PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2017/1/16 22:14, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 16/01/17 14:07, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote: > >> Hi Rafael, > >> > >> On 2017-01-03 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias > >>> <agust...@codeaurora.org> wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop > >>>> the conditional check on the first patch? > >>>> How can we move forward on this series? > >>> Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine > >>> which hasn't happened yet. > >> Pinging again. Do you have any questions that might help with your > >> review? I have some minor changes I have to make to the driver itself > >> (patch 3) and I'd like to submit any changes you might want along with > >> those. > > I'd like to add that these two initial patches are now a prerequisite > > for Hanjun's series, so it'd be good to have an idea of where we're > > going on that front. > > Is it helpful to test patch [1-2/3] on x86 machines (with different firmware) > and > an IA64 machine (surely a different version of firmware :) ) with Lorenzo's > suggestion > of removing #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI for is_gsi()? If yes, I can do > that as > I have such machines.
Well, it is always helpful, as helpful as getting this change into -next as soon as possible, at the end of the day it is quite simple, as soon as (hopefully never) we find some firmware out there (x86/ia64) that misused the resource source field in the interrupt descriptor we will have to add that guard back, it is as simple as that. Thanks, Lorenzo
