* Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx>: > On Thursday 04 June 2009 05:35:21 pm Alex Chiang wrote: > > * Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > > I have a concern about this change. > > > > > > The acpi_pci_irq_del_prt() against dev->bus removes not only > > > the _PRT entries for PCI function corresponding to specified > > > acpi_device, but also other _PRT entries for working PCI > > > devices/functions on the same bus. As a result, interrupt > > > initialization for those PCI functions would no longer work > > > properly after that. > > > > > > So I think we should not call acpi_pci_irq_del_prt() against > > > dev->bus. > > > > Thanks for the review. I agree with you. > > I agree that this respun version makes things more the way they were, > so in that sense, it should do no harm. But I still have the niggling > concern that .bind() adds _PRT info for non-bridges, and there's no > corresponding removal. There should be some path that makes this > more symmetric. Hm, in another forum, you suggested that dynamic PRT lookups might be a solution, which I kinda like. So, the plan that I would prefer is: a) get this patchset in [and we 'do no harm' here so _hopefully_ aren't introducing regressions] b) work on dynamic PRT lookups in a future patchset. Thanks. /ac -- 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
