On 12/1/2015 10:30 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > Not sure whether you saw my earlier response about this: > Sorry, I missed it.
> ACPI_MAX_IRQS is only used to size the acpi_irq_penalty[] table (and > after your patch, to validate IRQ numbers from ACPI). But I think > the acpi_irq_penalty[] table is a design we've outgrown. I *think* > we only care about penalties for IRQs 0-15, so even a 256-entry > table is more than we need. > > If we could make acpi_irq_penalty[] a fixed size of 16 entries or > replace it with a linked list, I think we could get rid of > ACPI_MAX_IRQS completely. Then the validation checks you add below > would be unnecessary and we could handle any interrupt number > supplied from ACPI. > > I think it would be really nice to get rid of the arbitrary maximum > interrupt ID (1020). Let me look and do some testing. I'll try to do less damage by using a link list rather than 16 and try to replicate the existing functionality. -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
