From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932622AbcJSWYM (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:24:12 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:40646 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932458AbcJSWYJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:24:09 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 smtp.codeaurora.org 9DE0F6035F Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=okaya@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts To: Bjorn Helgaas References: <1476505867-24599-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1476505867-24599-2-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <20161018135912.GD18903@localhost> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, bhelgaas@google.com, ravikanth.nalla@hpe.com, linux@rainbow-software.org, timur@codeaurora.org, cov@codeaurora.org, jcm@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, agross@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, wim@djo.tudelft.nl, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Len Brown From: Sinan Kaya Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:24:05 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161018135912.GD18903@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.