On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 02:08, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 09:33 +0800, Li Shaohua wrote: > > The comments in previous quirk said it's required only in PIC mode. > ... > > I feel we concerned too much. Changing the interrupt line isn't harmful, > > right? Linux actually ignored interrupt line. Maybe just a > > PCI_FIXUP_ENABLE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_VIA, PCI_ANY_ID, quirk_via_irq) is > > sufficient. > > I think it's good to limit the scope of the quirk as much as > possible because that makes it easier to do future restructuring, > such as device-specific interrupt routers. > > The comment (before quirk_via_acpi(), nowhere near quirk_via_irqpic()) > says *on-chip devices* have this unusual behavior when the interrupt > line is written. That makes sense to me. > > Writing the interrupt line on random plug-in Via PCI devices does > not make sense to me, because for that to have any effect, an > upstream bridge would have to be snooping the traffic going through > it. That doesn't sound plausible to me. > > What about this: Hmm, this looks like previous solution. We removed the specific via quirk is because we don't know how many devices have such issue. Every time we encounter an IRQ issue in a VIA PCI device, we will suspect it requires quirk and keep try. This is a big overhead.
Thanks, Shaohua - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
