Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965055AbWIJAWP (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:22:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965058AbWIJAWP (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:22:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:60138 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965055AbWIJAWO (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:22:14 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 17:21:12 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Alan Cox Cc: Daniel Drake , 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 X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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/