Bjorn, On 10/18/2016 6:59 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > It seems wrong to me that we call acpi_irq_get_penalty() from > acpi_irq_penalty_update() and acpi_penalize_isa_irq(). It seems like they > should just manipulate acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] directly. > > acpi_irq_penalty_update() is for command-line parameters, so it certainly > doesn't need the acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() information (the > acpi_link_list should be empty at the time we process the command-line > parameters). > > acpi_penalize_isa_irq() is telling us that a PNP or ACPI device is using > the IRQ -- this should modify the IRQ's penalty, but it shouldn't depend on > the acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() value at all. I posted v4 with this change and also went back to the original implementation for sharing penalty calculation whether the IRQ is ISA or PCI. Let us know what you think. I also realized that calculating sharing penalty while the link object is not initialized is not right. Sinan -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
