Re: patch for bugs 9998 and 10724

[Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>]

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);
> +       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).
Do I miss something?
> 
> thanks,
> rui
> 

--
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