From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [ACPI] Re: [Pcihpd-discuss] RE: [patch 2/2] acpi: add ability to derive irq when doing a surpriseremoval of an adapter Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:59:40 -0700 Message-ID: <20051019165940.GA2177@kroah.com> References: <59D45D057E9702469E5775CBB56411F190A57F@pdsmsx406> <1129053267.15526.9.camel@whizzy> <1129679877.30588.5.camel@whizzy> <200510190929.06728.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <1129740711.31966.21.camel@whizzy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1129740711.31966.21.camel@whizzy> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kristen Accardi Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, pcihpd-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Shah, Rajesh" , "Brown, Len" List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org 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