Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932736AbcJXDWK (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:22:10 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:38920 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756934AbcJXDWG (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:22:06 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 smtp.codeaurora.org 4F2A3612E2 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 V4 1/3] ACPI, PCI, IRQ: assign ISA IRQ directly during early boot stages To: Bjorn Helgaas References: <1476915664-27231-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1476915664-27231-2-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <20161021013930.GB31044@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: <98bb7d24-94db-b585-918e-04f3a64d93f0@codeaurora.org> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:22:02 -0400 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: <20161021013930.GB31044@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 Content-Length: 820 Lines: 16 On 10/20/2016 9:39 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> These API need to bypass the acpi_irq_get_penalty function. > I don't mind this patch, but the changelog doesn't tell me what's > broken and why we need this fix. Apparently acpi_irq_get_penalty() > doesn't work before ACPI is initialized, but I don't see *why* it > wouldn't work. I'll update the commit message as you suggested. The code doesn't work if we apply PATCH V4 2/3 + PATCH V4 3/3 without PATCH V4 1/3 since the caller is going to end up calling get_penalty function while ACPI is not initialized. This happened during the debug of this regression. -- 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.