From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sinan Kaya Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 12:09:11 -0500 Message-ID: <56686037.70109@codeaurora.org> References: <1449677909-12432-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1449677909-12432-2-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Timur Tabi , cov@codeaurora.org, jcm@redhat.com, helgaas@kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 12/9/2015 11:59 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> + if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL || >> > + polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW) >> > + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS; >> > + else >> > + penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; >> > + >> > + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty); > Why not to change in place? I think a common sense rule is not to > change something existing if it doesn't add any significant value. > Sorry, I didn't understand what you mean. Are you asking why we are changing lines like above? If yes, acpi_irq_penalty used to be an array of 256 entries. Now, acpi_irq_penalty doesn't exist anymore as it was replaced with a linklist. > - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; > + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING); > -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project