Re: [(repost) git Patch 1/1] avoid IRQ0 ioapic pin collision

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Thursday 27 April 2006 20:13, Brown, Len wrote:
> 
> >There are probably better ways to control 224 possible IRQs by their
> >total number instead of their range, and per-cpu IDTs are the better
> >answer to the IRQ shortage altogether. But just going back to 
> >the way it was wouldn't be right I think.
> >We were able to run 2 generations of
> >systems only because we had this compression, other big systems
> >benefited from it as well.
> 
> I don't propose reverting the IRQ re-name patch and breaking the
> big iron 

It would break VIA, not the big iron.  The big iron is just broken
by not applying the new patch.

> without replacing it with something else that works. 

Sure a lot of users would be unhappy if VIA didn't work anymore.
 
> My point is that the re-name patch has added unnecessary maintenance
> complexity to the 99.9% of systems that it runs on.  We pay that price
> in several ways, including mis-understandings about what devices
> are on what irqs, and mis-understandings about how the code is
> supposed to work.

Undoubtedly it would be cleaner to not have such hacks, but do you have a 
better proposal to make VIA work?

-Andi