From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937735AbcJRPdG (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:33:06 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:58034 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936195AbcJRPcr (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:32:47 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 smtp.codeaurora.org CB514612EE Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=okaya@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts To: Bjorn Helgaas References: <1476505867-24599-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1476505867-24599-2-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <20161018135912.GD18903@localhost> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, bhelgaas@google.com, ravikanth.nalla@hpe.com, linux@rainbow-software.org, timur@codeaurora.org, cov@codeaurora.org, jcm@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, agross@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, wim@djo.tudelft.nl, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Len Brown From: Sinan Kaya Message-ID: <0a82f2ef-b072-d847-104a-320cf804ebd5@codeaurora.org> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:32:44 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sorry, I think I didn't have enough morning coffee. Looking at these again and trying to be specific. On 10/18/2016 8:20 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > It seems wrong to me that we call acpi_irq_get_penalty() from >> acpi_irq_penalty_update() and acpi_penalize_isa_irq(). It seems like they >> should just manipulate acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] directly. >> >> acpi_irq_penalty_update() is for command-line parameters, so it certainly >> doesn't need the acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() information (the >> acpi_link_list should be empty at the time we process the command-line >> parameters). Calling acpi_irq_get_penalty for ISA IRQ is OK as long as it doesn't have any dynamic IRQ calculation such that acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty. If this is broken, then we need special care so that we don't assign dynamically calcualted sci_penalty back to acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq]. This results in returning incorrect penalty as acpi_irq_get_penalty = acpi_isa_irq_original_penalty[irq] + 2 * sci_penalty. Now that we added sci_penalty into the acpi_irq_get_penalty function, calling acpi_irq_get_penalty is not correct anymore. This line here needs to be replaced with acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] as you suggested. if (used) new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) + PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED; else new_penalty = 0; acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = new_penalty; >> >> acpi_penalize_isa_irq() is telling us that a PNP or ACPI device is using >> the IRQ -- this should modify the IRQ's penalty, but it shouldn't depend on >> the acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() value at all. >> Same problem here. This line will be broken after the sci_penalty change. acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) + (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING); -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.