On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 07:53:14AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>On 02/20/2013 05:57 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>it seems you mess pin with interrupt line.
>>
>>current code:
>> unsigned char irq;
>>
>> pci_read_config_byte(dev, PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN, &irq);
>> dev->pin = irq;
>> if (irq)
>> pci_read_config_byte(dev, PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE, &irq);
>> dev->irq = irq;
>>
>>so if the device does not have interrupt pin implemented, pin should be zero.
>>and pin and irq in dev should
>>be all 0.
>>
>But the device _has_ an interrupt pin implemented.
>The whole point here is that the interrupt line is _NOT_ zero.
>
...
>
>So at one point we have to decide that ->irq is not valid, despite it
>being not set to zero.
>An alternative fix would be this:
>
>diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>index 68a921d..4a480cb 100644
>--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
>@@ -469,6 +469,7 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
> } else {
> dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
> pin_name(pin));
>+ dev->irq = 0;
> }
> return 0;
> }
>
>Which probably is a better solution, as here ->irq is _definitely_
>not valid, so we should reset it to '0' to avoid confusion on upper
>layers.
>
Is there any agreement on how to proceed?
--
David Härdeman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
