From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kenji Kaneshige Subject: Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] Updated patches for PCI IRQ resource deallocation support [2/3] Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:49:11 +0900 Sender: linux-ia64-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <4157A9D7.4090605@jp.fujitsu.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: To: Zwane Mwaikambo Cc: Linux Kernel , long , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartmann , Len Brown , tony.luck@intel.com, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > >> Kenji Kaneshige wrote: >> >> > - Changed acpi_pci_irq_disable() to leave 'dev->irq' as it >> > is. Clearing 'dev->irq' by some magic constant >> > (e.g. PCI_UNDEFINED_IRQ) is TBD. >> >> This may not be safe with CONFIG_PCI_MSI, you may want to verify against >> that if you already haven't. >> Thank you for commemts. You are right. If the linux IRQ number is allocated by MSI code, clearing 'dev->irq' would cause a problem. So we need to consider clearing 'dev->irq' carefully. The latest patch doesn't clear 'dev->irq' so far. >> > +acpi_unregister_gsi (unsigned int irq) >> > +{ >> > +} >> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_unregister_gsi); >> >> Why not just make these static inlines in header files? Since you're on >> this, how about making irq_desc and friends dynamic too? > > Sorry, i broke Cc. > I'm not quite sure what you are saying, but my idea is defining acpi_unregister_gsi() as a opposite part of acpi_register_gsi(). Acpi_register_gsi() is defined for each arch (i386, ia64), so acpi_unregister_gsi() is defined for each i386 and ia64 too. Thanks, Kenji Kaneshige