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, 3 Mar 2016 10:12:43 -0500 Message-ID: <56D8546B.5040908@codeaurora.org> References: <1455801582-21595-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <20160229192420.GC3653@localhost> <56D4A53A.1070708@codeaurora.org> <20160229223453.GA12162@localhost> <56D5E43E.7050406@codeaurora.org> <20160301194340.GA19783@localhost> <56D7317F.7090500@codeaurora.org> <56D7ABFB.3070302@codeaurora.org> <56D84EA9.3080900@codeaurora.org> <20160303151048.GA3290@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160303151048.GA3290@localhost> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, timur@codeaurora.org, cov@codeaurora.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, ravikanth.nalla@hpe.com, lenb@kernel.org, harish.k@hpe.com, ashwin.reghunandanan@hpe.com, bhelgaas@google.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 3/3/2016 10:10 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > That was my idea, but your minimal patch from last night looks awfully > attractive, and maybe it's not worth moving it to arch/x86. I do think we > could simplify the code significantly by getting rid of the kzalloc and > acpi_irq_penalty_list from acpi_irq_set_penalty(). How about pushing on > that a little bit first, and see what it looks like then? OK. Let me go that direction. -- 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