On Thursday 29 September 2016 19:18:43 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/29/2016 12:48 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> >> Let's see the new set. If this doesn't work, I'll have to provide you
> >> with
> >>
> >> > another patch to get the penalty counts again. The original debug aids
> >> > patch may not apply after these.
> >
> > It boots but the IRQ problem still remains the same. See the attached
> > logs: dmesg-bad.txt: without the irq -> link->irq.active change
> > dmesg-bad2.txt: with the irq -> link->irq.active change
> > dmesg-bad2-debug.txt: as above with modified debug patch
> >
> > @@ -876,8 +893,11 @@ void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
> >  {
> >         int penalty = active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED :
> > PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> >
> > -       if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
> > +       if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty))) {
> >                 acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] += penalty;
> > +               pr_info("%s:%d acpi_isa_irq_penalty[%d]=0x%x active =
> > %d\n", __func__,
> > +                               __LINE__, irq, 
> > acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq), active);
> > +       }
> >  }
>
> The previous two patches were in the right direction.
>
> Can we also get the same output from 4.6 kernel with the attached patch for
> the same machine you sent these?

Here it is.

> Something about SCI still doesn't feel right.
>
> The IRQ assignment fails if the penalty is greater than
> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS. This will happen if BIOS tells us to use an IRQ
> and same IRQ is in use by the SCI.

-- 
Ondrej Zary