All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com,
	wency@cn.fujitsu.com, caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com,
	ddaney.cavm@gmail.com, okaya@codeaurora.org, bhelgaas@google.com,
	jiang.liu@linux.intel.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:25:05 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160127002505.GA3329@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601261628450.3886@nanos>

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:48:25PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:26:29AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > The proper solution here is to flag that this device does not have an
> > > interrupt connected and act accordingly in the device driver, i.e. do not call
> > > request_irq() in the first place.
> > 
> > This is the crux of the problem.  As far as I know, PCI doesn't have
> > a flag to indicate that dev->irq is a wire that's not connected, so
> > there's no generic way for a driver to know whether it should call
> > request_irq().
> 
> Ok.
>  
> > We could add one, of course, but that only helps in the drivers we
> > update.  It'd be nice if we could figure out a way to fix this
> > without having to touch all the drivers.
> 
> Hmm.
>  
> > I think any driver that uses line-based interrupts can potentially
> > fail if the platform uses Interrupt Line == 255 to indicate that the
> > line is not connected.  If another driver happens to be using IRQ 255,
> > request_irq() may fail as it does here.  Otherwise, I suspect
> > request_irq() will return success, but the driver won't get any
> > interrupts.
> 
> Right. So we could certainly do something like this INVALID_IRQ thingy, but
> that looks a bit weird. What would request_irq() return?
> 
> If it returns success, then drivers might make the wrong decision. If it
> returns an error code, then the i801 one works, but we might have to fix
> others anyway.

I was thinking request_irq() could return -EINVAL if the caller passed
INVALID_IRQ.  That should tell drivers that this interrupt won't work.

We'd be making request_irq() return -EINVAL in some cases where it
currently returns success.  But even though it returns success today,
I don't think the driver is getting interrupts, because the wire isn't
connected.

> I think it's better to have a software flag in pci_dev to indicate that there
> is no irq line and fix up the (probably few) affected drivers so they avoid
> calling request_irq() and take the right action.

We could add an "irq_valid" flag in struct pci_dev and make a new
rule that drivers should check dev->irq_valid before using dev->irq.
But realistically, i801 is the only place that will check irq_valid
because that's the only driver where we know about a problem, so that
seems like sort of a point solution.

Bjorn

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-27  0:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-25  6:59 [PATCH v2] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS Chen Fan
2016-01-25  6:59 ` Chen Fan
2016-01-25 20:58 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-26  1:40   ` Chen Fan
2016-01-26  1:40     ` Chen Fan
2016-01-26  4:05   ` Guenter Roeck
2016-01-26  8:26   ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-01-26  9:45     ` Chen Fan
2016-01-26  9:45       ` Chen Fan
2016-01-26  9:51       ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-01-26 15:22     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-26 15:48       ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-01-27  0:25         ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2016-01-27  5:24           ` Cao jin
2016-01-27  5:24             ` Cao jin
2016-01-27  8:35             ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-01-27  9:13           ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-01-27 22:32             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-28  1:00               ` Chen Fan
2016-01-28  1:00                 ` Chen Fan

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=20160127002505.GA3329@localhost \
    --to=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=ddaney.cavm@gmail.com \
    --cc=izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=jiang.liu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=okaya@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=wency@cn.fujitsu.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: link
Be 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.