Re: [Patch v2] x86, ACPI, irq: Add a quirk to override SCI polarity for HyperV

[Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>]

On 2015/8/19 14:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 2015/8/19 14:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> Nick Meier reported a regression with HyperV that "
>>>>   After rebooting the VM, the following messages are logged in syslog
>>>>   when trying to load the tulip driver:
>>>>     tulip: Linux Tulip drivers version 1.1.15 (Feb 27, 2007)
>>>>     tulip: 0000:00:0a.0: PCI INT A: failed to register GSI
>>>>     tulip: Cannot enable tulip board #0, aborting
>>>>     tulip: probe of 0000:00:0a.0 failed with error -16
>>>>   Errors occur in 3.19.0 kernel
>>>>   Works in 3.17 kernel.
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> According to the ACPI dump file posted by Nick at
>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1440072
>>>>
>>>> The ACPI MADT table includes an interrupt source overridden entry for
>>>> ACPI SCI:
>>>> [236h 0566  1]                Subtable Type : 02 <Interrupt Source Override>
>>>> [237h 0567  1]                       Length : 0A
>>>> [238h 0568  1]                          Bus : 00
>>>> [239h 0569  1]                       Source : 09
>>>> [23Ah 0570  4]                    Interrupt : 00000009
>>>> [23Eh 0574  2]        Flags (decoded below) : 000D
>>>>                                    Polarity : 1
>>>>                                Trigger Mode : 3
>>>>
>>>> And in DSDT table, we have _PRT method to define PCI interrupts, which
>>>> eventually goes to:
>>>>         Name (PRSA, ResourceTemplate ()
>>>>         {
>>>>             IRQ (Level, ActiveLow, Shared, )
>>>>                 {3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,14,15}
>>>>         })
>>>>         Name (PRSB, ResourceTemplate ()
>>>>         {
>>>>             IRQ (Level, ActiveLow, Shared, )
>>>>                 {3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,14,15}
>>>>         })
>>>>         Name (PRSC, ResourceTemplate ()
>>>>         {
>>>>             IRQ (Level, ActiveLow, Shared, )
>>>>                 {3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,14,15}
>>>>         })
>>>>         Name (PRSD, ResourceTemplate ()
>>>>         {
>>>>             IRQ (Level, ActiveLow, Shared, )
>>>>                 {3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,14,15}
>>>>         })
>>>>
>>>> According to the MADT and DSDT tables above, IRQ 9 may be used for:
>>>> 1) ACPI SCI in level, high mode
>>>> 2) PCI legacy IRQ in level, low mode
>>>> So there's a possible conflict in polarity setting for IRQ 9.
>>>>
>>>> Prior to commit cd68f6bd53cf ("x86, irq, acpi: Get rid of special
>>>> handling of GSI for ACPI SCI"), ACPI SCI is handled specially and
>>>> there's no check for conflicts between ACPI SCI and PCI legagy IRQ.
>>>> And it seems that the HyperV hypervisor doesn't make use of the
>>>> polarity configuration in IOAPIC entry, so it just works.
>>>
>>> That likely means the previous behavior was the same as (or at least
>>> analogous to) what happens on Windows which is what the firmware has
>>> been tested against and that's why the bug in it has not been caught.
>>> That in turn indicates that there may be more systems having this kind
>>> of problems, possibly from other vendors too, so I'm wondering if we
>>> can do something more generic than using a quirk here?
>> Hi Rafael,
>>         Good question. I was thought only virtual machines may generate
>> such fake ACPI tables with conflicting pin attribute settings. For bare
>> metal systems, I guess BIOS writers should report the correct hardware
>> configurations, otherwise wrong pin attributes may cause hardware
>> malfunction.
>>         If that's not the case, we may try to revert cd68f6bd53cf
> 
> Well, the regression at hand has just shown that the assertion in the
> changelog of that commit ("no need for for special treatment for GSI
> used by ACPI SCI") does not really hold.  So, if the only motivation
> for it was to get rid of one extra check in mp_unregister_gsi()
> (mp_register_gsi() still needs to check if it is dealing with the SCI
> anyway), I'd vote for reverting it.
Hi Rafael,
	The motivation is to treat SCI as normal IOAPIC interrupt so
we could enforce stricter pin attribute checking. Now it does reveal
flaws in ACPI BIOS implementations, but we ran into trouble about how to
handle those flaws:(
Thanks!
Gerry
ACPI bios with flaws:(
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>