Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 17:21:12 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org>, akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org,
       sergio@sergiomb.no-ip.org, jeff@garzik.org, cw@f00f.org,
       bjorn.helgaas@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, harmon@ksu.edu,
       len.brown@intel.com, vsu@altlinux.ru, liste@jordet.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] VIA IRQ quirk behaviour change
Message-ID: <20060910002112.GA20672@kroah.com>
References: <20060907223313.1770B7B40A0@zog.reactivated.net> <1157811641.6877.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4502D35E.8020802@gentoo.org> <1157817836.6877.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45033370.8040005@gentoo.org> <1157848272.6877.108.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1157848272.6877.108.camel@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 613
Lines: 16

On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 01:31:12AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> VIA have always told me that "ACPI handles this" and we don't need
> quirks. Various chips have different IRQ routing logic and it's all a
> bit weird if we don't use ACPI and/or BIOS routing.

So why isn't acpi handling all of this for us?  Do people not want to
use acpi for some reason?

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/