On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/9/2015 12:14 PM, Christopher Covington 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. >>>> - 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. > Is Chris' interpretation correct? Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable. > 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. Is it a question? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- 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
