Re: patch for bugs 9998 and 10724

[Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>]

Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 16:45 +0400, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>> Zhang Rui wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 16:35 +0400, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>>>> Here is the same patch as attachment for your convenience.
>>>> Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>>>>> Hi Andy,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just uploaded patch for bugs 9998 and 10724, which solves the problem 
>>>>> of interrupt storm more cleanly.
>>>>> Could you please add this patch to testing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alex.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> +       ec->t.command = 0;
>>> +       if (test_bit(EC_FLAGS_GPE_STORM, &ec->flags)) {
>>> +               /* check if we received SCI during transaction */
>>> +               ec_check_sci(ec, acpi_ec_read_status(ec));
>>> +               /* it is safe to enable GPE outside of transaction */
>>> +               acpi_enable_gpe(NULL, ec->gpe, ACPI_NOT_ISR);
>>> +       } else if (test_bit(EC_FLAGS_GPE_MODE, &ec->flags) &&
>>> +                  atomic_read(&ec->irq_count) >
>>> ACPI_EC_STORM_THRESHOLD)
> +	{
>>> +               pr_debug(PREFIX "GPE storm detected\n");
>>> +               set_bit(EC_FLAGS_GPE_STORM, &ec->flags);
> +	}
Thanks!
> 
> 
> thanks,
> rui
> 
>>> +       return 0;
>>> +}
>>>
>>> you will set the EC_FLAGS_GPE_STORM flag in every ec transaction.
>>> I don't think that's what you/we want. :)
>> please elaborate...
>> If EC_FLAGS_GPE_STORM is set once, I will not get there (else).
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html