Re: revert yenta free_irq on suspend

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > In general, I think that calling free_irq is the right behavior.
> 
> I DO NOT CARE!
> 
> It breaks hundreds of drivers. End of discussion.
> 
> You can do the free_irq() and request_irq() changes _without_ breaking 
> hundreds of drivers by just doing one driver at a time. 
> 
> And if ACPI then restores the irq controller state, the drivers that 
> _don't_ do this will _also_ continue to work.
> 
> Let me re-iterate: the ACPI changes provably BROKE REAL PEOPLES SETUPS. 
> 
> For absolutely _zero_ gain. Drivers that want to free and re-aquire an 
> interrupt can do so _regardless_ of whether ACPI restores irq routings 
> automatically or not.
> 
> And that's my argument. We don't do stupid things that break peoples 
> existing setups in ways that nobody can debug. 

Ok, so we'll keep adding those free_irq/request_irq pairs, and
re-introduce that ACPI change when we are ready? It would be helpfull
to keep the "right thing" in -mm, so there's real motivation to add
free_irq/request_irq.
								Pavel
-- 
if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/