From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: 4.7 regression: ACPI: No IRQ available for PCI Interrupt Link [LNKD]. Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:04:23 +0200 Message-ID: References: <201609251512.05657.linux@rainbow-software.org> <201609300844.24325.linux@rainbow-software.org> <677698369b23f5a6bcf3a66fed78802f@codeaurora.org> <201609301756.25894.linux@rainbow-software.org> <94aee80e-f7c3-5732-ef1e-08e3ecb19e5e@codeaurora.org> <5ee9b263-ed42-ee16-057e-2f4c1d2c1dc6@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:38491 "EHLO mail-wm0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751821AbcI3VEi (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:04:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5ee9b263-ed42-ee16-057e-2f4c1d2c1dc6@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Sinan Kaya Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ondrej Zary , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Bjorn Helgaas , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux PCI , wim@djo.tudelft.nl, ravikanth.nalla@hpe.com On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 9/30/2016 3:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> how do we feel about increasing the ISA IRQ range to 256 so that >>> > we are safe for all SCI interrupts? >> I'm not sure how this is related to the problem at hand. Care to elaborate? >> > > Sure, let me explain. > [cut] > > I hope it makes sense now. I tend to skip details sometimes. Feel free to > send more questions. Thanks for the information! IIUC, basically, what you are proposing would be to restore the old penalizing method for IRQs in the 0-255 range and use the new approach for the rest, right? What's the drawback, if any? Thanks, Rafael