Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:59:40 -0700 | | From | Greg KH <> | | Subject | Re: [ACPI] Re: [Pcihpd-discuss] RE: [patch 2/2] acpi: add ability to derive irq when doing a surpriseremoval of an adapter |
| |
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 09:51:51AM -0700, Kristen Accardi wrote: > On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 09:29 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Tuesday 18 October 2005 5:57 pm, Kristen Accardi wrote: > > > For surprise hotplug removal, the interrupt pin must be guessed, as any > > > attempts to read it would obviously be invalid. This patch adds a new > > > function to cycle through all possible pin values, and tries to either > > > lookup or derive the right irq to disable. > > > > I don't really like this because it adds a new path that's only > > used for "surprise" removals. So we have acpi_pci_irq_disable(), > > which is used for normal removals, and acpi_pci_irq_disable_nodev() > > for the surprise path. That feels like a maintenance problem. > > > > Other, non-ACPI, IRQ routing schemes should have the same problem > > (needing to know the interrupt pin after the device has been removed), > > so maybe the pin needs to be cached in the pci_dev? > > This seems like a good idea to me, if nobody objects to adding another > field to pci_dev, I can change the patch to do this and resubmit.
No objection from me.
thanks,
greg k-h - 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/
|  |