Re: [patch 00/47] Sparse irq rework

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 10/08/2010 11:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> +	/* only handle fall out from setup_IO_APIC_irqs() */
> > 
> > What's the fallout ? And why are we coming here in the first place
> > when the irq is < 16 ?
> 
> setup_IO_APIC_irqs only handle apic_id == 0 or apic_id > 0 but irq < 16 via acpi override.
> 
> it seems IBM's system have apic_id == 1, and sci irq is using 30.
> 
> so at that time add that setup_IO_APIC_irq_extra() to workaround it.
> but it seems we set that two time when irq < 16.
> 
> > 
> >> +	if (!((apic_id > 0) && (irq > 16)))
> >> +		return;

I added this into the queue, but simplified it to 

  if (apic_id == 0 || irq < NR_IRQS_LEGACY)

Folded in the other fix and pushed out an updated tree.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/