From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [(repost) git Patch 1/1] avoid IRQ0 ioapic pin collision Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:16:39 +0200 Message-ID: <200604272016.39874.ak@suse.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:1192 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932073AbWD0SQu (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:16:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Brown, Len" Cc: "Protasevich, Natalie" , sergio@sergiomb.no-ip.org, Kimball Murray , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@digeo.com, kmurray@redhat.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org 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