RE: [(repost) git Patch 1/1] avoid IRQ0 ioapic pin collision

[Protasevich, Natalie]

> I think, it is about time, not thinking via quirks as 
> workarounds, because all pcis (on via) are quirked, some are 
> quirked twice.
> And we should think in programmer interrupts of via chipset, 
> in specific function for this propose, for me, doesn't make 
> sense every time VIA put other ID out, we have to add quirks 
> to this ID , as this was an exception. 
> 
> Thanks, 

VIA's numerous pci quirks are not related to this patch. They only hit
one problem with it having only 4 bits encoding their interrupt.
 
> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 15:53 -0400, Brown, Len wrote:
> > I'd rather see the original irq-renaming patch and its subsequent 
> > multiple via workaround patches reverted than to further complicate 
> > what is becoming a fragile mess.
> > 
> > -Len

There are probably better ways to control 224 possible IRQs by their
total number instead of their range, and per-cpu IDTs are the better
answer to the IRQ shortage altogether. But just going back to the way it
was wouldn't be right I think. We were able to run 2 generations of
systems only because we had this compression, other big systems
benefited from it as well.
Thanks,
--Natalie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/