Hi Mika, On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:49:43AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 03:47:01PM +0200, Loic Poulain wrote: > > Direct Irq En bit can be initialized to a bad value. > > This bit has to be cleared for io access mode. > > +Eric > > I would like to have a bit better explanation *why* this bit needs to be > cleared. > > Also want to ask Eric (who added the WARN()), is there something > preventing us to do this? I remember last time you said that we are not > supposed to change this bit runtime. > > My preference is that we get rid of the WARN() and just unconditionally > clear the bit. I'd keep the warn though, as it most likely shows a buggy firmware implementation.
Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation SAS (French simplified joint stock company) Registered headquarters: "Les Montalets"- 2, rue de Paris, 92196 Meudon Cedex, France Registration Number: 302 456 199 R.C.S. NANTERRE Capital: 4,572,000 Euros This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- 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/