4.8-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit eeaed4bb5a35591470b545590bb2f26dbe7653a2 upstream.
We do not want to store the SCI penalty in the acpi_isa_irq_penalty[]
table because acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] only holds ISA IRQ penalties and
there's no guarantee that the SCI is an ISA IRQ. We add in the SCI
penalty as a special case in acpi_irq_get_penalty().
But if we called acpi_penalize_isa_irq() or acpi_irq_penalty_update()
for an SCI that happened to be an ISA IRQ, they stored the SCI
penalty (part of the acpi_irq_get_penalty() return value) in
acpi_isa_irq_penalty[]. Subsequent calls to acpi_irq_get_penalty()
returned a penalty that included *two* SCI penalties.
Fixes: 103544d86976 (ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements)
Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
@@ -849,7 +849,7 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_updat
continue;
if (used)
- new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
+ new_penalty = acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] +
PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
else
new_penalty = 0;
@@ -871,7 +871,7 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_updat
void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
{
if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
- acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
+ acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] +=
(active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html