From: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
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,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:34:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56AADDDB.2050303@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8924816.km1PStJUTB@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 01/29/2016 11:37 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 02:57:36 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Hi Chen,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for persevering and working this all out!
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 09:35:46AM +0800, Chen Fan wrote:
>>> In our X86 environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
>>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails and result in
>>> the call trace below, here we introduce an IRQ_NOTCONNECTED to identify
>>> the device interrupt is not connected.
>>>
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>>> genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa)
>>> CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>>> Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>>>
>>> Call Trace:
>>> dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>> __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>>> request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>>> i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>>> local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>>> i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
>> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
>>
>> Rafael, I assume you'll take this if you think it's ready.
> I can do that.
>
>> This is a subtle problem and, if I understand correctly, can manifest
>> intermittently depending on the machine configuration. For example,
>> if you got rid of the "megasa" driver, I suspect i801_smbus would not
>> complain, but it wouldn't work.
>>
>> I think we might want to consider doing something for non-x86 arches
>> as well, but we can do that later. I propose a changelog like the
>> following. Please correct anything I got wrong. I suspect we will be
>> revisiting this issue eventually, so I'd like to have a good
>> description.
>>
>>
>> x86/PCI: Recognize that Interrupt Line 255 means "not connected"
>>
>> Per the x86-specific footnote to PCI spec r3.0, sec 6.2.4, the value 255 in
>> the Interrupt Line register means "unknown" or "no connection."
>> Previously, when we couldn't derive an IRQ from the _PRT, we fell back to
>> using the value from Interrupt Line as an IRQ. It's questionable whether
>> we should do that at all, but the spec clearly suggests we shouldn't do it
>> for the value 255 on x86.
>>
>> Calling request_irq() with IRQ 255 may succeed, but the driver won't
>> receive any interrupts. Or, if IRQ 255 is shared with another device, it
>> may succeed, and the driver's ISR will be called at random times when the
>> *other* device interrupts. Or it may fail if another device is using IRQ
>> 255 with incompatible flags. What we *want* is for request_irq() to fail
>> predictably so the driver can fall back to polling.
>>
>> On x86, assume 255 in the Interrupt Line means the INTx line is not
>> connected. In that case, set dev->irq to IRQ_NOTCONNECTED so request_irq()
>> will fail gracefully with -ENOTCONN.
>>
>> We found this problem on a system where Secure Boot firmware assigned
>> Interrupt Line 255 to an i801_smbus device and another device was already
>> using MSI-X IRQ 255. This was in v3.10, where i801_probe() fails if
>> request_irq() fails:
>>
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>> genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa)
>> CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>> Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>> Call Trace:
>> dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>> __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>> request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>> i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>> local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>> i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>
>> After aeb8a3d16ae0 ("i2c: i801: Check if interrupts are disabled"),
>> i801_probe() will fall back to polling if request_irq() fails. But we
>> still need this patch because request_irq() may succeed or fail depending
>> on other devices in the system. If request_irq() fails, i801_smbus will
>> work by falling back to polling, but if it succeeds, i801_smbus won't work
>> because it expects interrupts that it may not receive.
> I like this. :-)
>
> Chen, can you please add the changelog as suggested by Bjorn to the patch
> and resend?
Sure, Thank all of you.
Chen
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
>
> .
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-29 3:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-28 1:35 [PATCH v4 1/1] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS Chen Fan
2016-01-28 8:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-01-28 20:57 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-29 3:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-29 3:34 ` Chen Fan [this message]
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=56AADDDB.2050303@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=ddaney.cavm@gmail.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).