> <6>IOAPIC[64]: apic_id 127, version 32, address 0xfec49000, GSI
> 1728-1751
>
> wow, big box!
Yea, it's decent :) I asked for the big one since this way we can test
IRQs "wrapping around".
>
> >I have tested this algorithm and it worked just fine for
> me... I used
> >the following compression code in mp_register_gsi():
> >
> >
> >int irqs_used = 0;
> >int gsi_to_irq[NR_IRQS] = { [0 ... NR_IRQS-1] = -1 };
> >...
> >
> > if (triggering == ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE) {
> > if (gsi > NR_IRQS) {
> > int i;
> > printk("NBP: looking for unused IRQ\n");
> > for (i = nr_ioapic_registers[0]; i < NR_IRQS;
> i++) {
> > if (gsi_to_irq[i] == -1) {
> > gsi_to_irq[i] = gsi;
> > gsi = i;
> > break;
> > }
> > }
> > if (i >= NR_IRQS) {
> > printk(KERN_ERR "GSI %u is
> too high\n",
> ...
> > return gsi;
> > }
> > } else
> > gsi_to_irq[gsi] = gsi;
> > }
>
> the problem with this code as it stands is that
> acpi/mp_register_gsi() can be called with gsi in any order.
> So it is possible for the compression code above to select
> gsi_to_irq[n] and later for the non-compression path to
> over-write gsi_to_irq[n].
>
It should always find the entry it's done the first one around actually,
the first thing in mp_register_gsi() will check for it I think.
> Also, I would prefer that this code be in
> ioapic_renumber_irq(), as I think it is unnecessarily complex
> to re-number, and then re-number again.
> (gsi_irq_sharing() is a separate discussion)
Sure - for i386, but Len, we would have to bring it into x86_64 and make
this thing above (or something like this) to be a default handler, yes.
>
> I think this should be model-specific, but if you feel that
> handling (gsi > NR_IRQS) here is important in the generic
> case, then I'm fine with this being a default
> ioapic_renumber_irq() handler that a platform can augment/override.
>
OK.. besides note that only pretty large system will wrap around to get
unused IRQs, the rest of the world is getting pretty much default
behavior, pre-compression time so to speak :)
> Re: returning error
> At one point acpi_register_gsi() was able to return an error.
> However, that was broken when acpi_gsi_to_irq() was created,
> and then broken worse when that routine was modified with
> gsi_irq_sharing(). if you BUG() on i > NR_IRQS, that would
> be consistent wth gsi_irq_sharing().
Ok, sounds good. I will put something together according to the above
and hopefully test it soon.
Thanks,
--Natalie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
