Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:04:40 -0700
From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [ 026/105] ACPI: EC: Make the GPE storm threshold a module
 parameter
Message-ID: <20121029000440.GE6083@elie.Belkin>
References: <20121028231536.970033833@decadent.org.uk>
 <20121028231545.002108441@decadent.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121028231545.002108441@decadent.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21+51 (9e756d1adb76) (2011-07-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 952
Lines: 24

Ben Hutchings wrote:

> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
[...]
> commit a520d52e99b14ba7db135e916348f12f2a6e09be upstream.
>
> The Linux EC driver includes a mechanism to detect GPE storms,
> and switch from interrupt-mode to polling mode.  However, polling
> mode sometimes doesn't work, so the workaround is problematic.
> Also, different systems seem to need the threshold for detecting
> the GPE storm at different levels.

Not an objection, but this is a weird parameter.  How many false
interrupts per transaction should be expected?  Is there some fact
about the hardware or firmware that makes this a well defined number
on each machine?

Thanks,
Jonathan
--
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/