Messages in this thread | | | From | "Grover, Andrew" <> | Subject | RE: ACPI IRQ routing (was [ACPI] ACPI source release updated (200 11205)) | Date | Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:17:04 -0800 |
| |
> From: Kai Germaschewski [mailto:kai@tp1.ruhr-uni-bochum.de]
Hi Kai,
I also got ACPI IRQ routing working on a system over the weekend. Sounds like yours is better, so great we'll adopt yours. Thanks for stepping up on this.
> I changed pci-irq.c to use the ACPI interrupt routing, and also added > dynamic routing table support. The appended patch is a bit > preliminary, > but it works here, even for assigning irqs.
> Further comments/to do: > o The ACPI PCI in general needs further cleanup and > integration with the > normal PCI layer. I believe that should wait until the new device > infrastructure is in place, though. E.g., I think one can > get rid of the static table which is currently setup in acpi_pci.c.
<shrug>. Once we get it working, we can get it working right, and save the 1K.
> o I'm not exactly happy with the way ACPI does things currently, but I > didn't change it to keep the patch small. It uses multiple functions > to parse the IRQ resource descriptor into a linked list of > "acpi_resource" which I then again have to convert back into the > mask which was in the IRQ resource desriptor in the first place. > About the same holds for the other way, instead of just setting > up a five byte IRQ descriptor, I need to setup two "acpi_resource" > structs, calculate lengths, etc. which will eventually be > converted to > just the five bytes. IMO the conversion routines are unnecessary > bloat...
Like I said above, I think it's too early to be optimizing this code. My main concern was more about integrating ACPI into pci-irq.c in a readable manner. It is pretty $PIR-specific (no surprise there). Anyways let me work with your new code and I will be able to comment more.
> o Things need to be made dynamic, i.e. try ACPI and if it > doesn't work, > fall back to the normal method. Also, a command line flag to disable > acpi irq routing is probably a good idea.
At this point, I'd think one to *enable* it would be better until the code is tested more.
Regards -- Andy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |