On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 16:45 +0400, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Zhang Rui wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 16:35 +0400, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> >> Here is the same patch as attachment for your convenience.
> >> Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> >>> Hi Andy,
> >>>
> >>> I just uploaded patch for bugs 9998 and 10724, which solves the problem
> >>> of interrupt storm more cleanly.
> >>> Could you please add this patch to testing?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Alex.
> >>>
> >>>
> > + ec->t.command = 0;
> > + if (test_bit(EC_FLAGS_GPE_STORM, &ec->flags)) {
> > + /* check if we received SCI during transaction */
> > + ec_check_sci(ec, acpi_ec_read_status(ec));
> > + /* it is safe to enable GPE outside of transaction */
> > + acpi_enable_gpe(NULL, ec->gpe, ACPI_NOT_ISR);
> > + } else if (test_bit(EC_FLAGS_GPE_MODE, &ec->flags) &&
> > + atomic_read(&ec->irq_count) >
> > ACPI_EC_STORM_THRESHOLD)
+ {
> > + pr_debug(PREFIX "GPE storm detected\n");
> > + set_bit(EC_FLAGS_GPE_STORM, &ec->flags);
+ }
thanks,
rui
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> >
> > you will set the EC_FLAGS_GPE_STORM flag in every ec transaction.
> > I don't think that's what you/we want. :)
> please elaborate...
> If EC_FLAGS_GPE_STORM is set once, I will not get there (else).
--
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
