On 4/12/2016 1:19 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > Hi Sinan, > > I was hoping we could *simplify* this, but I think it's just getting > even more complicated (it's a net addition of 100 lines), which is due > to feature creep that I'm afraid is my fault. > > IIRC, the main thing you need is to get rid of some early memory > allocation. > > I don't think all the trigger mode/level checking is worth it. The > current code doesn't do it, and it's not fixing a problem for you. > It's conceivable that it could even make us trip over a new problem, > e.g., some broken BIOS that we currently tolerate. > > I think you could make this a little easier to review if you split > things like the acpi_irq_penalty[] -> acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] rename > into their own patches. Little patches like that are trivial to > review because a simple rename is pretty safe, and then the patches > that actually *do* interesting things are smaller and easier to > review, too. OK. I honestly didn't like adding this check either. I'll work on a new set and post with your additional comments in 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
