On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Jiang Liu wrote:
> > On 2015/8/19 14:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, the regression at hand has just shown that the assertion in the
> > > changelog of that commit ("no need for for special treatment for GSI
> > > used by ACPI SCI") does not really hold. So, if the only motivation
> > > for it was to get rid of one extra check in mp_unregister_gsi()
> > > (mp_register_gsi() still needs to check if it is dealing with the SCI
> > > anyway), I'd vote for reverting it.
> > Hi Rafael,
> > The motivation is to treat SCI as normal IOAPIC interrupt so
> > we could enforce stricter pin attribute checking. Now it does reveal
> > flaws in ACPI BIOS implementations, but we ran into trouble about how to
> > handle those flaws:(
>
> The intent of this change is entirely correct, though it seems that
> reality of ACPI is just different.
>
> To be on the safe side of things, I agree with Rafael that we should
> revert that patch instead of introducing a single platform quirk.
Jiang,
can you please prepare a revert patch for this?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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
