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

Greg KH
2005-10-19T16:59:40Z

On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 09:51:51AM -0700, Kristen Accardi wrote:
> 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.

No objection from me.

thanks,

greg k-h