Code currently supports 256 maximum interrupts at this moment. The patch is
reconfiguring the penalty array as a dynamic list to remove this
limitation.
A new penalty linklist has been added for all other interrupts greater than
16. If an IRQ is not found in the link list, an IRQ info structure will be
dynamically allocated on the first access and will be placed on the list
for further reuse. The list will grow by the number of supported interrupts
in the ACPI table rather than having a 256 hard limitation.
Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <[email protected]>
---
drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 136 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 102 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
index 7c8408b..0286f17 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
* Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 Andy Grover <[email protected]>
* Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 Paul Diefenbaugh <[email protected]>
* Copyright (C) 2002 Dominik Brodowski <[email protected]>
+ * Copyright (c) 2015, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
*
* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*
@@ -437,7 +438,6 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
* enabled system.
*/
-#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS 256
#define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ 16
#define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE (0)
@@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
#define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED (16*16*16*16*16)
#define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS (16*16*16*16*16*16)
-static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
+static int acpi_irq_isa_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ] = {
PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS, /* IRQ0 timer */
PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS, /* IRQ1 keyboard */
PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS, /* IRQ2 cascade */
@@ -464,9 +464,68 @@ static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED, /* IRQ13 fpe, sometimes */
PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED, /* IRQ14 ide0 */
PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED, /* IRQ15 ide1 */
- /* >IRQ15 */
};
+struct irq_penalty_info {
+ int irq;
+ int penalty;
+ struct list_head node;
+};
+
+static LIST_HEAD(acpi_irq_penalty_list);
+
+static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
+{
+ struct irq_penalty_info *irq_info;
+
+ if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ)
+ return acpi_irq_isa_penalty[irq];
+
+ list_for_each_entry(irq_info, &acpi_irq_penalty_list, node) {
+ if (irq_info->irq == irq)
+ return irq_info->penalty;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int acpi_irq_set_penalty(int irq, int new_penalty)
+{
+ struct irq_penalty_info *irq_info;
+
+ /* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
+ if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ) {
+ acpi_irq_isa_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ /* next, try to locate from the dynamic list */
+ list_for_each_entry(irq_info, &acpi_irq_penalty_list, node) {
+ if (irq_info->irq == irq) {
+ irq_info->penalty = new_penalty;
+ return 0;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* nope, let's allocate a slot for this IRQ */
+ irq_info = kzalloc(sizeof(*irq_info), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!irq_info)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ irq_info->irq = irq;
+ irq_info->penalty = new_penalty;
+ list_add_tail(&irq_info->node, &acpi_irq_penalty_list);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void acpi_irq_add_penalty(int irq, int penalty)
+{
+ int curpen = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq);
+
+ acpi_irq_set_penalty(irq, curpen + penalty);
+}
+
int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
{
struct acpi_pci_link *link;
@@ -487,15 +546,16 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
link->irq.possible_count;
for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
- if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ)
- acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
- possible[i]] +=
- penalty;
+ if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ) {
+ int irqpos = link->irq.possible[i];
+
+ acpi_irq_add_penalty(irqpos, penalty);
+ }
}
} else if (link->irq.active) {
- acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
- PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
+ acpi_irq_add_penalty(link->irq.active,
+ PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE);
}
}
@@ -547,12 +607,12 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
* the use of IRQs 9, 10, 11, and >15.
*/
for (i = (link->irq.possible_count - 1); i >= 0; i--) {
- if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >
- acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]])
+ if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >
+ acpi_irq_get_penalty(link->irq.possible[i]))
irq = link->irq.possible[i];
}
}
- if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
+ if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No IRQ available for %s [%s]. "
"Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off\n",
acpi_device_name(link->device),
@@ -568,7 +628,8 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
acpi_device_bid(link->device));
return -ENODEV;
} else {
- acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+ acpi_irq_add_penalty(link->irq.active, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
+
printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
acpi_device_name(link->device),
acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->irq.active);
@@ -778,7 +839,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
}
/*
- * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
+ * modify penalty from cmdline
*/
static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
{
@@ -796,13 +857,10 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
if (irq < 0)
continue;
- if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
- continue;
-
if (used)
- acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
+ acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED);
else
- acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE;
+ acpi_irq_set_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE);
if (retval != 2) /* no next number */
break;
@@ -819,18 +877,23 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
*/
void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
{
- if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
- if (active)
- acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
- else
- acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
- }
+ int penalty;
+
+ if (irq < 0)
+ return;
+
+ if (active)
+ penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
+ else
+ penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+
+ acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
}
bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
{
- return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
- acpi_irq_penalty[irq] < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
+ return irq >= 0 &&
+ (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
}
/*
@@ -840,13 +903,18 @@ bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
*/
void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
{
- if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
- if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
- polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
- acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
- else
- acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
- }
+ int penalty;
+
+ if (irq < 0)
+ return;
+
+ if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
+ polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
+ penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
+ else
+ penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+
+ acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
}
/*
--
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Sinan Kaya <[email protected]> wrote:
> Code currently supports 256 maximum interrupts at this moment. The patch is
> reconfiguring the penalty array as a dynamic list to remove this
> limitation.
>
> A new penalty linklist has been added for all other interrupts greater than
> 16. If an IRQ is not found in the link list, an IRQ info structure will be
> dynamically allocated on the first access and will be placed on the list
> for further reuse. The list will grow by the number of supported interrupts
> in the ACPI table rather than having a 256 hard limitation.
>
> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <[email protected]>
Few nitpicks, though if Bjorn is okay with this one, you may ignore below.
> ---
> drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 136 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 102 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index 7c8408b..0286f17 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> * Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 Andy Grover <[email protected]>
> * Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 Paul Diefenbaugh <[email protected]>
> * Copyright (C) 2002 Dominik Brodowski <[email protected]>
> + * Copyright (c) 2015, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
> *
> * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> *
> @@ -437,7 +438,6 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
> * enabled system.
> */
>
> -#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS 256
> #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ 16
>
> #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE (0)
> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
> #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED (16*16*16*16*16)
> #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS (16*16*16*16*16*16)
>
> -static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
> +static int acpi_irq_isa_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ] = {
> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS, /* IRQ0 timer */
> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS, /* IRQ1 keyboard */
> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS, /* IRQ2 cascade */
> @@ -464,9 +464,68 @@ static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED, /* IRQ13 fpe, sometimes */
> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED, /* IRQ14 ide0 */
> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED, /* IRQ15 ide1 */
> - /* >IRQ15 */
> };
>
> +struct irq_penalty_info {
> + int irq;
> + int penalty;
> + struct list_head node;
> +};
> +
> +static LIST_HEAD(acpi_irq_penalty_list);
> +
> +static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
> +{
> + struct irq_penalty_info *irq_info;
> +
> + if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ)
> + return acpi_irq_isa_penalty[irq];
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(irq_info, &acpi_irq_penalty_list, node) {
> + if (irq_info->irq == irq)
> + return irq_info->penalty;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int acpi_irq_set_penalty(int irq, int new_penalty)
> +{
> + struct irq_penalty_info *irq_info;
> +
> + /* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
> + if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ) {
> + acpi_irq_isa_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + /* next, try to locate from the dynamic list */
> + list_for_each_entry(irq_info, &acpi_irq_penalty_list, node) {
> + if (irq_info->irq == irq) {
> + irq_info->penalty = new_penalty;
> + return 0;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* nope, let's allocate a slot for this IRQ */
> + irq_info = kzalloc(sizeof(*irq_info), GFP_KERNEL);
Maybe a comment to explain why we don't have a symmetric free() option.
> + if (!irq_info)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + irq_info->irq = irq;
> + irq_info->penalty = new_penalty;
> + list_add_tail(&irq_info->node, &acpi_irq_penalty_list);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void acpi_irq_add_penalty(int irq, int penalty)
> +{
> + int curpen = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq);
> +
> + acpi_irq_set_penalty(irq, curpen + penalty);
Can it be one line?
> +}
> +
> int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
> {
> struct acpi_pci_link *link;
> @@ -487,15 +546,16 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
> link->irq.possible_count;
>
> for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
> - if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ)
> - acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> - possible[i]] +=
> - penalty;
> + if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ) {
> + int irqpos = link->irq.possible[i];
> +
> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irqpos, penalty);
> + }
> }
>
> } else if (link->irq.active) {
> - acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(link->irq.active,
> + PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -547,12 +607,12 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
> * the use of IRQs 9, 10, 11, and >15.
> */
> for (i = (link->irq.possible_count - 1); i >= 0; i--) {
> - if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >
> - acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]])
> + if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >
> + acpi_irq_get_penalty(link->irq.possible[i]))
> irq = link->irq.possible[i];
> }
> }
> - if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
> + if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
> printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No IRQ available for %s [%s]. "
> "Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off\n",
> acpi_device_name(link->device),
> @@ -568,7 +628,8 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
> acpi_device_bid(link->device));
> return -ENODEV;
> } else {
> - acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(link->irq.active, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> +
> printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
> acpi_device_name(link->device),
> acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->irq.active);
> @@ -778,7 +839,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> }
>
> /*
> - * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
> + * modify penalty from cmdline
> */
> static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> {
> @@ -796,13 +857,10 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> if (irq < 0)
> continue;
>
> - if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
> - continue;
> -
> if (used)
> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED);
> else
> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE;
> + acpi_irq_set_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE);
>
> if (retval != 2) /* no next number */
> break;
> @@ -819,18 +877,23 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> */
> void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
> {
> - if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
> - if (active)
> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> - else
> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> - }
> + int penalty;
> +
> + if (irq < 0)
> + return;
> +
> + if (active)
> + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> + else
> + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> +
> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
Same as below
> }
>
> bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
> {
> - return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
> + return irq >= 0 &&
> + (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -840,13 +903,18 @@ bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
> */
> void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
> {
> - if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
> - if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
> - polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
> - else
> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> - }
> + int penalty;
> +
> + if (irq < 0)
> + return;
> +
> + if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
> + polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
> + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
> + else
> + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> +
> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
Why not to change in place? I think a common sense rule is not to
change something existing if it doesn't add any significant value.
- acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+ acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On 12/9/2015 11:59 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> + if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
>> > + polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>> > + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>> > + else
>> > + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>> > +
>> > + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
> Why not to change in place? I think a common sense rule is not to
> change something existing if it doesn't add any significant value.
>
Sorry, I didn't understand what you mean. Are you asking why we are
changing lines like above?
If yes, acpi_irq_penalty used to be an array of 256 entries. Now,
acpi_irq_penalty doesn't exist anymore as it was replaced with a linklist.
> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Hi Sinan,
On 12/09/2015 12:09 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 12/9/2015 11:59 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> + if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
>>>> + polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>>>> + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>>>> + else
>>>> + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>>> +
>>>> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
>> Why not to change in place? I think a common sense rule is not to
>> change something existing if it doesn't add any significant value.
>>
> Sorry, I didn't understand what you mean. Are you asking why we are
> changing lines like above?
>
> If yes, acpi_irq_penalty used to be an array of 256 entries. Now,
> acpi_irq_penalty doesn't exist anymore as it was replaced with a linklist.
>
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
I think Andy was suggesting that you make the change without introducing
the penalty variable.
Christopher Covington
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Hi Bjorn, Andy;
On 12/9/2015 12:14 PM, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Hi Sinan,
>
> On 12/09/2015 12:09 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 12/9/2015 11:59 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> + if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
>>>>> + polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>>>>> + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
>>> Why not to change in place? I think a common sense rule is not to
>>> change something existing if it doesn't add any significant value.
>>>
>> Sorry, I didn't understand what you mean. Are you asking why we are
>> changing lines like above?
>>
>> If yes, acpi_irq_penalty used to be an array of 256 entries. Now,
>> acpi_irq_penalty doesn't exist anymore as it was replaced with a linklist.
>>
>>> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>
> I think Andy was suggesting that you make the change without introducing
> the penalty variable.
>
> Christopher Covington
>
Andy,
Is Chris' interpretation correct?
BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.
Bjorn,
Is there any other question you need me to address on this patch?
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Sinan Kaya <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/9/2015 12:14 PM, Christopher Covington wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2015 11:59 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>> + if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
>>>>>> + polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>>>>>> + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>>>>>> + else
>>>>>> + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
>>>> Why not to change in place? I think a common sense rule is not to
>>>> change something existing if it doesn't add any significant value.
>>>> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>>> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>>
>> I think Andy was suggesting that you make the change without introducing
>> the penalty variable.
> Is Chris' interpretation correct?
Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable.
> BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
> have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.
Is it a question?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On 12/30/2015 8:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable.
>
>> > BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
>> > have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.
> Is it a question?
It is a request not a question. I hate wasting your time and my time with things that I could
have fixed before submitting a patch.
I ran the checkpatch and it said I'm good to go. But, obviously I'm not.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Sinan Kaya <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 8:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable.
>>
>>> > BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
>>> > have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.
>> Is it a question?
>
> It is a request not a question. I hate wasting your time and my time with things that I could
> have fixed before submitting a patch.
>
> I ran the checkpatch and it said I'm good to go. But, obviously I'm not.
Hmm… checkpatch.pl is just a small helper to fix style issues. Here is
just a common sense rule, or kind of Occam's razor: no need to have
more variables then needed if it doesn't improve something really
significantly.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 09:55:35 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Sinan Kaya <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 12/30/2015 8:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable.
> >>
> >>> > BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
> >>> > have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.
> >> Is it a question?
> >
> > It is a request not a question. I hate wasting your time and my time with things that I could
> > have fixed before submitting a patch.
> >
> > I ran the checkpatch and it said I'm good to go. But, obviously I'm not.
>
> Hmm… checkpatch.pl is just a small helper to fix style issues. Here is
> just a common sense rule, or kind of Occam's razor: no need to have
> more variables then needed if it doesn't improve something really
> significantly.
That said, compilers optimize things anyway, so using an extra local variable
shouldn't matter for the resulting machine code.
Thanks,
Rafael