Hi Bjorn, Andy; On 12/9/2015 12:14 PM, Christopher Covington wrote: > 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 > Andy, Is Chris' interpretation correct? BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch. Bjorn, Is there any other question you need me to address on this patch? -- 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
