| Message ID | 1467188859-28188-5-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote: > The omitted parenthesis prevents the addition operation when > acpi_penalize_isa_irq function is called. > > Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> Well, this is a rather obvious one, so I'm wondering why it is the last one in the series? > --- > drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > index 8c08971..c983bf7 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > @@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active) > { > if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty))) > acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) + > - active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; > + (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING); > } > > bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq) > -- Thanks, Rafael
On 6/29/2016 9:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> > Well, this is a rather obvious one, so I'm wondering why it is the > last one in the series? > The first three are more relevant to each other. It makes easy to correlate the changes.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 6/29/2016 9:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> >> Well, this is a rather obvious one, so I'm wondering why it is the >> last one in the series? >> > > The first three are more relevant to each other. It makes easy to > correlate the changes. But this one doesn't seem to depend on them and it could be applied without them, right? Thanks, Rafael
On 6/29/2016 5:14 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 9:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> >>> Well, this is a rather obvious one, so I'm wondering why it is the >>> last one in the series? >>> >> >> The first three are more relevant to each other. It makes easy to >> correlate the changes. > > But this one doesn't seem to depend on them and it could be applied > without them, right? > Sure. It has no dependency. > Thanks, > Rafael >
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 6/29/2016 5:14 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> On 6/29/2016 9:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> >>>> Well, this is a rather obvious one, so I'm wondering why it is the >>>> last one in the series? >>>> >>> >>> The first three are more relevant to each other. It makes easy to >>> correlate the changes. >> >> But this one doesn't seem to depend on them and it could be applied >> without them, right? >> > > Sure. It has no dependency. OK I've queued up this one. Thanks, Rafael
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c index 8c08971..c983bf7 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c @@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active) { if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty))) acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) + - active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; + (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING); } bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
The omitted parenthesis prevents the addition operation when acpi_penalize_isa_irq function is called. Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> --- drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)