On 12/9/2015 11:59 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> + if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL || >> > + polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW) >> > + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS; >> > + else >> > + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; >> > + >> > + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty); > Why not to change in place? I think a common sense rule is not to > change something existing if it doesn't add any significant value. > Sorry, I didn't understand what you mean. Are you asking why we are changing lines like above? If yes, acpi_irq_penalty used to be an array of 256 entries. Now, acpi_irq_penalty doesn't exist anymore as it was replaced with a linklist. > - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; > + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING); > -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- 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
