Re: [ACPI] Re: [Pcihpd-discuss] RE: [patch 2/2] acpi: add ability to derive irq when doing a surpriseremoval of an adapter

[Kristen Accardi <kristen.c.accardi@intel.com>]

On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 09:29 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 October 2005 5:57 pm, Kristen Accardi wrote:
> > For surprise hotplug removal, the interrupt pin must be guessed, as any
> > attempts to read it would obviously be invalid.  This patch adds a new
> > function to cycle through all possible pin values, and tries to either
> > lookup or derive the right irq to disable.
> 
> I don't really like this because it adds a new path that's only
> used for "surprise" removals.  So we have acpi_pci_irq_disable(),
> which is used for normal removals, and acpi_pci_irq_disable_nodev()
> for the surprise path.  That feels like a maintenance problem.
> 
> Other, non-ACPI, IRQ routing schemes should have the same problem
> (needing to know the interrupt pin after the device has been removed),
> so maybe the pin needs to be cached in the pci_dev?

This seems like a good idea to me, if nobody objects to adding another
field to pci_dev, I can change the patch to do this and resubmit.