Re: eisa_set_level_irq(acpi_fadt.sci_int)

[Len Brown <len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

Are you running with the kacpid patch to poll for acpi events
as mentioned in the link below, or vanilla -pre7 and -pre8?

Does /proc/interrupts for vanilla -pre8 show any acpi interrupts
after acpi events?

Does /proc/interrupts for vanilla -pre7 show any acpi interrupts
after acpi events?

Please apply this patch to your -pre7 tree and tell me if you see any
changes in behaviour:

http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/patches/test/2.4.22/20031020180809-eisa_set_level_irq.patch

again showing /proc/interrupts after acpi events.

My expectation is that it should make no difference, except
for printing the extra line about changing the trigger mode.

If the kacpid patch is necessary for you to get any acpi events,
then the real bug here is how to get the VT82C686 to deliver
acpi events without resorting to polling.

thanks,
-Len


On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 00:19, Sérgio Monteiro Basto wrote:
> Hi 
> make bzImage with your patch and make install
> appears your NOT! in dmesg 
> Resolves the hangs but ... now I don't have any events :)
> 
> I don't know if it helps but this story isn't new.
> BTW in September of 2002, someone discover that if we apply this
> eisa_set_level_irq, our laptop begin generate ACPI events, before that
> we have one patch that has been applied until ACPI core system 20020907 
> or something like that.
> if you want to know more about this story in presarios 7xx laptops see
> this page
> http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/presario/
> Power management and Core system chapters. 
> I don't said nothing before because, I don't have any acknowledgments
> about this interrupt things.
> 
> thanks 
> 
> now with 23-pre8
> cat /proc/interrupts
>            CPU0
>   0:      24319          XT-PIC  timer
>   1:        717          XT-PIC  keyboard
>   2:          0          XT-PIC  cascade
>   8:          1          XT-PIC  rtc
>   9:        161          XT-PIC  usb-uhci
>  10:          0          XT-PIC  acpi
>  12:       2612          XT-PIC  PS/2 Mouse
>  14:      10581          XT-PIC  ide0
>  15:       2406          XT-PIC  ide1
> NMI:          0
> ERR:          0
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 04:13, Len Brown wrote:
> > Actually that change in -pre8 was a no-op -- we still force the PIC
> > SCI from Edge to Level, just that now we print a message when we do so.
> > 
> > I expect the regression related to your lid switch is cased
> > by something else.  But since you have a box with an Edge Triggered
> > SCI, I'd be interested if you are able to receive ACPI interrupts
> > if we leave the SCI in Edge Triggered mode:
> > 
> > ===== arch/i386/kernel/acpi.c 1.14 vs edited =====
> > --- 1.14/arch/i386/kernel/acpi.c        Mon Oct 20 18:08:05 2003
> > +++ edited/arch/i386/kernel/acpi.c      Thu Oct 23 23:09:05 2003
> > @@ -492,6 +492,8 @@
> >         if (!(val & mask)) {
> >                 printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "IRQ %d was Edge Triggered, "
> >                         "setting to Level Triggerd\n", irq);
> > +               printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "NOT!\n");
> > +               return;
> >                 outb(val | mask, port);
> >         }
> >  }
> > 
> > If you get a chance to try it, please send the /proc/interrupts
> > from before & after.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > -Len
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 22:54, Sérgio Monteiro Basto wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > Seems that patch has been applied into kernel-2.4.23-pre8 and hangs my
> > > laptop when lid button is pressed.
> > > Here is dmesg file.
> > > where you can see ACPI: IRQ 10 was Edge Triggered, setting to Level
> > > Triggerd
> > > Notes: 
> > > With pre7 all works fine.
> > > I have APIC disable.
> > > Other buttons like sleep, power have the normal beaver 
> > > if I can help testing something else tell me.
> > > 
> > > thanks
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 05:25, Len Brown wrote:
> > > > Ducrot,
> > > > I've found at least 1 system where hardcoding the PIC SCI to
> > > > Level-Triggered fails, while leaving it as Edge Triggered succeeds.
> > > > 
> > > > The Intel SE7505VB2 "Vero Beach" when booted with "noapic" leaves IRQ9
> > > > as edge triggered.
> > > > 
> > > > When we force it to level triggered, we get no ACPI events.
> > > > If we leave it as edge triggered, we do get ACPI events.
> > > > 
> > > > The other systems in my office leave the PIC SCI in Level Triggered
> > > > mode, so Linux need do nothing to the trigger.
> > > > 
> > > > Today's patch prints a warning when the mode changes:
> > > > 
> > > >                 printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "IRQ %d was Edge Triggered, "
> > > >                         "setting to Level Triggerd\n", irq);
> > > > 
> > > > But I'm thinking that by default we should _not_ change the trigger.
> > > > Instead we should do so only upon, say acpi=sci_level_trigger or some
> > > > such.  If there is a popular model that leaves SCI as edge and requires
> > > > level to work, then we can use DMI to set this param for it.
> > > > 
> > > > thanks,
> > > > -Len
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 13:28, Len Brown wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 11:41, Ducrot Bruno wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 05:48:04PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > > > > > > What does eisa_set_level_irq() do for us?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > As its presence breaks the !CONFIG_PCI build, I deleted it and found
> > > > > > > that ACPI in PIC mode seems to work just fine without it (at least on 2
> > > > > > > of 2 systems tested so far)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This ensure SCI interrupt is correctly initialized for (poorly) written
> > > > > > BIOS.  Without it, this break one of my laptop, and certainly others as well.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do ACPI interrupt work on this latop?  What happens on that system if
> > > > > you delete the call to eisa_set_level_irq()?
> > > > > 
> > > > > If we blindly program the PIC to be level senstive when the hardware is
> > > > > designed to be edge triggered, then we'll probably get no ACPI events on
> > > > > those systems, as the pulse may not be asserted long enough to provoke
> > > > > an interrupt.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We used to blindly program the APIC assuming the SCI was ACPI compliant,
> > > > > but we got burnt when we discovered that a significant set of system do
> > > > > _not_ have a level-triggered active-low SCI.  Most of those specified
> > > > > their deviation with an SCI-over-ride in the MADT, but some did not:
> > > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=774
> > > > > 
> > > > > The APIC solution was to
> > > > > 1. don't hard-code level-triggered active-low
> > > > > 2. do whatever the SCI over-ride says
> > > > > 3. if no SCI over-ride, leave the interrupt trigger/polarity as the BIOS
> > > > > programmed it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > -Len
> > > > > 
> > > > > ps. this routine is mis-named, it it not EISA specific.  Further, it is
> > > > > mis-located in a PCI-specific file but is not PCI specific.  It should
> > > > > be in an X86 specific interrupt file and be named pic_something.  I'm
> > > > > thinking I'll clone it into our x86 acpi code and add a warning when we
> > > > > find that it actually _changes_ the polarity.
> > 



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: The SF.net Donation Program.
Do you like what SourceForge.net is doing for the Open
Source Community?  Make a contribution, and help us add new
features and functionality. Click here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/