Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:27:10 +0530 | From | "Nobin Mathew" <> | Subject | Re: sharing interrupt between PCI device |
| |
Adding david to CC
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:12:05PM +0530, Nobin Mathew wrote: >> I could not find the definition of acpi_unregister_gsi in i386/x86_64 >> code, it is defined only for ia64. > > Sorry - I was looking at the ia64 branch by mistake. > >> >> Since it is defined as a weak symbol, I feel it is not getting called >> (correct if I am wrong, I searched in google for this). > > You are right. > > sorry, > grant > >> /* FIXME: implement x86/x86_64 version */ >> void __attribute__ ((weak)) acpi_unregister_gsi(u32 i) >> { >> } >> >> How this weak symbols work, is it something like >> acpi_pci_irq_disable() will not call acpi_unregister_gsi() in some >> platforms. >> >> Thanks >> Nobin Mathew. >> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Nobin Mathew <nobin.mathew@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Yes USB Virtual Controller has input devices like keyboard and mouse >> > (routed through hpilo card (remote console)), so those things stops >> > working when we remove hpilo driver. >> > >> > Thanks >> > Nobin Mathew >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: >> >> >> >> * Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> [+ingo - question for you about disable_irq() below] >> >> >> >>> The same problem exists with disable_irq() : only takes a global >> >>> IRQ# and no additional identifying information to prevent disabling >> >>> a shared IRQ. So I'm not sure if this is a bug with ACPI or design >> >>> flaw in generic IRQ APIs. Ingo? >> >> >> >> that's how disable_irq() always worked: it disables all handlers on >> >> that IRQ#. If the IRQ# is shared, it disables all handlers. >> >> >> >> Ingo >> >> >> > >
| |