On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 07:58:57PM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 10/20/2016 7:31 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > ... > > And I don't think it fixes a user-visible problem, so it doesn't need > > to be applied immediately. I'm not sure this is worth doing by > > itself; maybe it should wait until we can do more cleanup and think > > about all these issues together? > > It does fix the PCI_USING penalty assignment. > > if (link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) > penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; > > > If we drop this patch, then we need > [PATCH V3 1/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2547605 > > as somebody needs to increment the penalty with PCI_USING when IRQ is assigned > for a given ISA IRQ. > > We might as well take [PATCH V4 1/3], [PATCH V4 2/3] and [PATCH V3 1/3] > for this regression. It sounds like either V3 1/3 or V4 3/3 will fix the regression. The V3 1/3 patch is much smaller and essentially makes this piece look like it did in v4.6. The V4 3/3 patch removes acpi_irq_penalty_init() and compensates by using acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() for ISA IRQs again. But acpi_irq_penalty_init() added PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE for _CRS, and only if there was no _PRS, while acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() always adds PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING for _CRS, regardless of whether _PRS exists. Since V4 3/3 is so much bigger and makes this quite subtle change in how _CRS is handled, I like V3 1/3 better. Are we all set to go now? I think I've acked the patches you mentioned. Bjorn -- 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
