Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752144AbbHSJGI (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:06:08 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:23955 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750874AbbHSJGE (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:06:04 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,708,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="628259931" Subject: Re: [Patch v2] x86, ACPI, irq: Add a quirk to override SCI polarity for HyperV To: Thomas Gleixner References: <1439963634-12006-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> <55D42185.1000709@linux.intel.com> <55D427D3.7040103@linux.intel.com> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Nick Meier , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" From: Jiang Liu Organization: Intel Message-ID: <55D446F3.7000500@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:05:55 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: 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 Content-Length: 1461 Lines: 31 On 2015/8/19 16:40, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Jiang Liu wrote: >>> On 2015/8/19 14:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> Well, the regression at hand has just shown that the assertion in the >>>> changelog of that commit ("no need for for special treatment for GSI >>>> used by ACPI SCI") does not really hold. So, if the only motivation >>>> for it was to get rid of one extra check in mp_unregister_gsi() >>>> (mp_register_gsi() still needs to check if it is dealing with the SCI >>>> anyway), I'd vote for reverting it. >>> Hi Rafael, >>> The motivation is to treat SCI as normal IOAPIC interrupt so >>> we could enforce stricter pin attribute checking. Now it does reveal >>> flaws in ACPI BIOS implementations, but we ran into trouble about how to >>> handle those flaws:( >> >> The intent of this change is entirely correct, though it seems that >> reality of ACPI is just different. >> >> To be on the safe side of things, I agree with Rafael that we should >> revert that patch instead of introducing a single platform quirk. > > Jiang, > > can you please prepare a revert patch for this? Sure, will send out revert patch after basic tests. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/