Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | RE: [patch 1/2] Incorrect PCI interrupt assignment on ES7000 for platform GSI | Date | Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:36:02 -0500 | From | "Protasevich, Natalie" <> |
| |
>> diff -puN arch/i386/kernel/acpi/boot.c~mypatch arch/i386/kernel/acpi/boot.c >> --- linux/arch/i386/kernel/acpi/boot.c~mypatch 2004-09-13 14:08:21.192015024 -0600 >> +++ linux-root/arch/i386/kernel/acpi/boot.c 2004-09-13 14:10:51.457171248 -0600 >> @@ -442,6 +442,7 @@ int acpi_gsi_to_irq(u32 gsi, unsigned in unsigned >> int acpi_register_gsi(u32 gsi, int edge_level, int active_high_low) { >> unsigned int irq; >> + unsigned int plat_gsi; >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI >> /* >> @@ -463,10 +464,10 @@ unsigned int acpi_register_gsi(u32 gsi, >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC >> if (acpi_irq_model == ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_IOAPIC) { >> - mp_register_gsi(gsi, edge_level, active_high_low); >> + plat_gsi = mp_register_gsi(gsi, edge_level, active_high_low); >> } >> #endif >> - acpi_gsi_to_irq(gsi, &irq); >> + acpi_gsi_to_irq(plat_gsi, &irq); >> return irq; >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_register_gsi); > > Looking at that, won't that cause problems if we don't have IOAPIC? > Then you end up using an undefined value as GSI.
Oops, you are right! thanks for catching this. I guess it would be OK to do:
int acpi_register_gsi(u32 gsi, int edge_level, int active_high_low) { unsigned int irq; + unsigned int plat_gsi = gsi;
--Natalie - 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/
| |