From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, LKP ML <lkp@01.org> Subject: Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:28:00 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <55190910.3010905@linux.intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <5513F807.7070304@linux.intel.com> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1887 bytes --] Ying, can you please try this patch to see if the problem is gone on your side? Thanks, -Aubrey On 2015/3/26 20:13, Li, Aubrey wrote: > On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote: >> [ 28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0) > > okay, I replicated this on my side now. > > Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch > exposes a few issues FWICT currently: > > - Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in > hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM > block are not valid(register address = 0) > > - I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource > under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The > question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we > assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then > requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine. > > - Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request > IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets > irq8, so we saw "genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. > 00000000 (rtc0)". So here is another question, when we dynamically > allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if > allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start > from IRQ1. > > What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq > from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign > IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every > IRQ dynamically. > > For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update > allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI > registers are not valid. > > Certainly I'm open to any suggestions. > > Thanks, > -Aubrey > [-- Attachment #2: 0001-x86-platform-acpi-Statically-assign-IRQ-numbers-in-A.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1755 bytes --] >From 46524ace94eaf68c9719725472ab4ea28d079a7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:50:09 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] x86/platform, acpi: Statically assign IRQ numbers in ACPI hardware reduced mode We should be able to dynamically assign IRQ number on the platform in ACPI Hardware-reduced mode, but on the Bay Trail-T(ASUS-T100) platform, there is a RTC device still using the legacy hardcoded IRQ8, which could cause the following error: 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0) So we want to statically assign IRQ numbers in ACPI hardware reduced mode to fix this error Signed-off-by: Li Aubrey <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> Cc: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> --- arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c index 803b684..4cd0761 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c @@ -460,8 +460,12 @@ acpi_parse_ioapic(struct acpi_subtable_header * header, const unsigned long end) acpi_table_print_madt_entry(header); - /* Statically assign IRQ numbers for IOAPICs hosting legacy IRQs */ - if (ioapic->global_irq_base < nr_legacy_irqs()) + /* + * Statically assign IRQ numbers for IOAPICs hosting legacy IRQs, + * Or for the platform in Hardware-reduced ACPI model + */ + if (ioapic->global_irq_base < nr_legacy_irqs() || + acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware) cfg.type = IOAPIC_DOMAIN_LEGACY; mp_register_ioapic(ioapic->id, ioapic->address, ioapic->global_irq_base, -- 1.9.1
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Li, Aubrey <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:28:00 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <55190910.3010905@linux.intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <5513F807.7070304@linux.intel.com> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1937 bytes --] Ying, can you please try this patch to see if the problem is gone on your side? Thanks, -Aubrey On 2015/3/26 20:13, Li, Aubrey wrote: > On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote: >> [ 28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0) > > okay, I replicated this on my side now. > > Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch > exposes a few issues FWICT currently: > > - Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in > hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM > block are not valid(register address = 0) > > - I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource > under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The > question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we > assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then > requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine. > > - Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request > IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets > irq8, so we saw "genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. > 00000000 (rtc0)". So here is another question, when we dynamically > allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if > allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start > from IRQ1. > > What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq > from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign > IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every > IRQ dynamically. > > For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update > allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI > registers are not valid. > > Certainly I'm open to any suggestions. > > Thanks, > -Aubrey > [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #2: 0001-x86-platform-acpi-Statically-assign-IRQ-numbers-in-A.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1755 bytes --] >From 46524ace94eaf68c9719725472ab4ea28d079a7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:50:09 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] x86/platform, acpi: Statically assign IRQ numbers in ACPI hardware reduced mode We should be able to dynamically assign IRQ number on the platform in ACPI Hardware-reduced mode, but on the Bay Trail-T(ASUS-T100) platform, there is a RTC device still using the legacy hardcoded IRQ8, which could cause the following error: 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0) So we want to statically assign IRQ numbers in ACPI hardware reduced mode to fix this error Signed-off-by: Li Aubrey <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> Cc: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> --- arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c index 803b684..4cd0761 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c @@ -460,8 +460,12 @@ acpi_parse_ioapic(struct acpi_subtable_header * header, const unsigned long end) acpi_table_print_madt_entry(header); - /* Statically assign IRQ numbers for IOAPICs hosting legacy IRQs */ - if (ioapic->global_irq_base < nr_legacy_irqs()) + /* + * Statically assign IRQ numbers for IOAPICs hosting legacy IRQs, + * Or for the platform in Hardware-reduced ACPI model + */ + if (ioapic->global_irq_base < nr_legacy_irqs() || + acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware) cfg.type = IOAPIC_DOMAIN_LEGACY; mp_register_ioapic(ioapic->id, ioapic->address, ioapic->global_irq_base, -- 1.9.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-30 8:28 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-03-20 8:38 [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0) Huang Ying 2015-03-20 8:38 ` Huang Ying 2015-03-23 6:18 ` [LKP] " Li, Aubrey 2015-03-23 6:18 ` Li, Aubrey 2015-03-24 0:53 ` [LKP] " Huang Ying 2015-03-24 0:53 ` Huang Ying 2015-03-24 2:16 ` [LKP] " Li, Aubrey 2015-03-24 2:16 ` Li, Aubrey 2015-03-24 5:34 ` [LKP] " Li, Aubrey 2015-03-24 5:34 ` Li, Aubrey 2015-03-25 7:22 ` [LKP] " Huang Ying 2015-03-25 7:22 ` Huang Ying 2015-03-26 12:13 ` [LKP] " Li, Aubrey 2015-03-26 12:13 ` Li, Aubrey 2015-03-30 8:28 ` Li, Aubrey [this message] 2015-03-30 8:28 ` Li, Aubrey 2015-03-30 8:37 ` [LKP] " Jiang Liu 2015-03-30 8:37 ` Jiang Liu 2015-03-30 12:19 ` [LKP] " Li, Aubrey 2015-03-30 12:19 ` Li, Aubrey
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=55190910.3010905@linux.intel.com \ --to=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=lkp@01.org \ --cc=mingo@kernel.org \ --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.