On 10/22/2016 7:58 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:31:05AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
>> resource requirements") removed PCI_USING penalty from
>> acpi_pci_link_allocate function as there is no longer a fixed
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:31:05AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
> resource requirements") removed PCI_USING penalty from
> acpi_pci_link_allocate function as there is no longer a fixed size penalty
> array for both PCI interrupts gre
On 10/20/2016 7:41 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:01:04PM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 10/19/2016 3:44 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
>>> - Maintain a mapping of (IRQ, penalty). Initially all penalties are
>>> zero. This is for *all* IRQs, not just ISA ones. This coul
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:01:04PM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 3:44 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > - Maintain a mapping of (IRQ, penalty). Initially all penalties are
> > zero. This is for *all* IRQs, not just ISA ones. This could be a
> > linked list, but the structure is
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:17:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:32:44AM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> Sorry, I think I didn't have enough morning coffee.
> >>
> >> Looking at these again and trying to be spe
On 10/20/2016 2:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 10/19/2016 3:44 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>> If we want to move the ISA pieces out of this file, that can be done too.
>> We can also add support for PNPACPI. I'm not a very big
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 3:44 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[cut]
> If we want to move the ISA pieces out of this file, that can be done too.
> We can also add support for PNPACPI. I'm not a very big fan of scratch
> everything and start from beginning appro
On 10/19/2016 3:44 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[cut]
>>
>> Same problem here. This line will be broken after the sci_penalty change.
>>
>> acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
>> (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>
> I thi
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:32:44AM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> Sorry, I think I didn't have enough morning coffee.
>>
>> Looking at these again and trying to be specific.
>>
>> On 10/18/2016 8:20 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> > It seems wrong to
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:32:44AM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Sorry, I think I didn't have enough morning coffee.
>
> Looking at these again and trying to be specific.
>
> On 10/18/2016 8:20 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > It seems wrong to me that we call acpi_irq_get_penalty() from
> >> acpi_irq_pena
Bjorn,
On 10/18/2016 6:59 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> It seems wrong to me that we call acpi_irq_get_penalty() from
> acpi_irq_penalty_update() and acpi_penalize_isa_irq(). It seems like they
> should just manipulate acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] directly.
>
> acpi_irq_penalty_update() is for command
Sorry, I think I didn't have enough morning coffee.
Looking at these again and trying to be specific.
On 10/18/2016 8:20 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> It seems wrong to me that we call acpi_irq_get_penalty() from
>> acpi_irq_penalty_update() and acpi_penalize_isa_irq(). It seems like they
>> should ju
On 10/18/2016 6:59 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> However, this function only gets called if the IRQ number is greater than
>> > 16 and acpi_irq_get_penalty function gets called before ACPI start in
>> > acpi_isa_irq_available and acpi_penalize_isa_irq functions. We can't rely
>> > on iterating the li
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:31:05AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
> resource requirements") removed PCI_USING penalty from
> acpi_pci_link_allocate function as there is no longer a fixed size penalty
> array for both PCI interrupts gre
Hi Rafael,
On 10/15/2016 8:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
>> resource requirements") removed PCI_USING penalty from
>> acpi_pci_link_allocate function as there is no longer
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
> resource requirements") removed PCI_USING penalty from
> acpi_pci_link_allocate function as there is no longer a fixed size penalty
> array for both PCI interrupts greater tha
The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
resource requirements") removed PCI_USING penalty from
acpi_pci_link_allocate function as there is no longer a fixed size penalty
array for both PCI interrupts greater than 16.
The array size has been reduced to 16 and array name
17 matches
Mail list logo
