From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sinan Kaya Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] acpi, pci, irq: account for early penalty assignment Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:43:32 -0500 Message-ID: <56C5F4B4.2080400@codeaurora.org> References: <1455801582-21595-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:35665 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946357AbcBRQng (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:43:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Bjorn Helgaas Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List , Timur Tabi , Christopher Covington , Linux PCI , ravikanth.nalla@hpe.com, Len Brown , harish.k@hpe.com, ashwin.reghunandanan@hpe.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List On 2/18/2016 11:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> +#define ACPI_PCI_LINK_MAX_EARLY_IRQINFO 1024 > Why do we need so many of them? > The previous code supported 1024 max interrupts before "ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction" change. I added back 1024 number but the limit is only for early IRQs now. -- 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