From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiang Liu Subject: Re: [Patch v2] x86, ACPI, irq: Add a quirk to override SCI polarity for HyperV Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:05:55 +0800 Message-ID: <55D446F3.7000500@linux.intel.com> References: <1439963634-12006-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> <55D42185.1000709@linux.intel.com> <55D427D3.7040103@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Nick Meier , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 2015/8/19 16:40, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Jiang Liu wrote: >>> On 2015/8/19 14:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> Well, the regression at hand has just shown that the assertion in the >>>> changelog of that commit ("no need for for special treatment for GSI >>>> used by ACPI SCI") does not really hold. So, if the only motivation >>>> for it was to get rid of one extra check in mp_unregister_gsi() >>>> (mp_register_gsi() still needs to check if it is dealing with the SCI >>>> anyway), I'd vote for reverting it. >>> Hi Rafael, >>> The motivation is to treat SCI as normal IOAPIC interrupt so >>> we could enforce stricter pin attribute checking. Now it does reveal >>> flaws in ACPI BIOS implementations, but we ran into trouble about how to >>> handle those flaws:( >> >> The intent of this change is entirely correct, though it seems that >> reality of ACPI is just different. >> >> To be on the safe side of things, I agree with Rafael that we should >> revert that patch instead of introducing a single platform quirk. > > Jiang, > > can you please prepare a revert patch for this? Sure, will send out revert patch after basic tests.