[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3 1/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Sinan Kaya <> wrote:
> The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
> resource requirements") removed PCI_USING penalty from
> acpi_pci_link_allocate function as there is no longer a fixed size penalty
> array for both PCI interrupts greater than 16.
> The array size has been reduced to 16 and array name got prefixed as ISA
> since it only is accountable for the ISA interrupts.
> The original change in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
> resource requirements") removed penalty assignment in the code for PCI
> thinking that we will add the penalty later in acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty
> function.

I'd write the above this way:

"Commit 103544d86976 (ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements)
dropped the PCI_USING penalty from acpi_pci_link_allocate() with the
assumption that the penalty will be added later in

This conveys essentially the same information (up to some irrelevant
bits), but in a clearer way IMO.

> However, this function only gets called if the IRQ number is greater than
> 16 and acpi_irq_get_penalty function gets called before ACPI start in
> acpi_isa_irq_available and acpi_penalize_isa_irq functions. We can't rely
> on iterating the link list.

"However, acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() is only called for IRQ
numbers above 15. Moreover, acpi_irq_get_penalty() is invoked by
acpi_isa_irq_available() and acpi_penalize_isa_irq() before the ACPI
initialization and the PCI interrupt links list is not ready at that
point, so it cannot be relied on when computing the penalty."

> We need to add the PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts too if the link is
> in use and matches our ISA IRQ number.

"For this reason, the PCI_USING penalty has to be added in
acpi_pci_link_allocate() directly if the link has been enabled
successfully and the IRQ number is within the ISA range."


> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index c983bf7..a212709 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -619,6 +619,10 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
> acpi_device_bid(link->device));
> return -ENODEV;
> } else {
> + if (link-> < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->] +=
> +

There's no need to break the line here and I would put the above after
the printk().

Or even after the whole "else" branch (which is unnecessary, but let's
limit changes in this patch).

> printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
> acpi_device_name(link->device),
> acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->;
> --


 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-15 14:40    [W:0.185 / U:1.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site