Hi Sinan, On 12/09/2015 12:09 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > 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); I think Andy was suggesting that you make the change without introducing the penalty variable. Christopher Covington -- 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
