On 9/30/2016 5:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> >> What's the drawback, if any?
>> >
>> > I don't see any drawback to be honest.
> I'd go for it then, if Bjorn doesn't hate it.
>
I posted a follow up patch a minute ago.
[PATCH 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"
[PATCH 2/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
[PATCH 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"
Can we have some testing coverage? and eventually have tested-by?
--
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.
On Saturday 01 October 2016 19:49:17 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/30/2016 5:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> >> What's the drawback, if any?
> >> >
> >> > I don't see any drawback to be honest.
> >
> > I'd go for it then, if Bjorn doesn't hate it.
>
> I posted a follow up patch a minute ago.
>
> [PATCH 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"
> [PATCH 2/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
> [PATCH 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"
>
> Can we have some testing coverage? and eventually have tested-by?
Works on two affected machines. More tests tomorrow.
--
Ondrej Zary
On 10/2/2016 12:53 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>> Can we have some testing coverage? and eventually have tested-by?
> Works on two affected machines. More tests tomorrow.
Thanks, appreciate the feedback. Looking forward to hear your other test results.
--
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.
On Monday 03 October 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 10/2/2016 12:53 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> >> Can we have some testing coverage? and eventually have tested-by?
> >
> > Works on two affected machines. More tests tomorrow.
>
> Thanks, appreciate the feedback. Looking forward to hear your other test
> results.
The other two affected machines are working too.
--
Ondrej Zary
Hi Ondrej,
On 10/3/2016 3:25 AM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 10/2/2016 12:53 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>>>> Can we have some testing coverage? and eventually have tested-by?
>>>
>>> Works on two affected machines. More tests tomorrow.
>>
>> Thanks, appreciate the feedback. Looking forward to hear your other test
>> results.
>
> The other two affected machines are working too.
>
Can I have your "tested by" before I repost the new version with updated
commit message?
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.
On Saturday 01 October 2016 19:49:17 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/30/2016 5:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> >> What's the drawback, if any?
> >> >
> >> > I don't see any drawback to be honest.
> >
> > I'd go for it then, if Bjorn doesn't hate it.
>
> I posted a follow up patch a minute ago.
>
> [PATCH 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"
> [PATCH 2/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
> [PATCH 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"
>
> Can we have some testing coverage? and eventually have tested-by?
Fixes the problem on all 4 machines.
These patches also need to go into 4.7-stable and 4.8-stable.
Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <[email protected]>
--
Ondrej Zary