RE: [PATCH] pinctrl/amd: Use regular interrupt instead of chained

RE: [PATCH] pinctrl/amd: Use regular interrupt instead of chained

[Thomas Gleixner]

Nehal,

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Shah, Nehal-bakulchandra wrote:
> Thanks for the patch. However, we have received this issue from multiple
> people and different disro but it occurs only on Gigabyte hardware. With
> reference AM4 ryzen board we are not facing this issue.  We are in
> discussion with gigabyte to check the BIOS part. Once we have clarity on
> that, we can consider driver part. Also, this code is running on multiple
> platform of different customers so changing directly at this point of
> time may be risky in my point of view. Requesting you to hold this patch
> till we get clarity on bios end.

It does not matter at all whether this is a problem only on GB
hardware. Fact is, that this happened and it will happen again.

The patch does not change any functionality of the driver, it merily makes
it more robust and spares users the bloody annoying experience of a non
booting machine and the tedious task of figuring out why.

The main objective of the kernel is robustness and not pleasing the ego of
silicon vendors. We can't prevent the stupidity of BIOS people, we merily
can deal with it.

That patch should go into mainline ASAP and backported to stable in order
to help those people who bought wreckaged hardware.

Thanks,

	tglx

RE: [PATCH] pinctrl/amd: Use regular interrupt instead of chained

[Shah, Nehal-bakulchandra]

Hi Thomas,

Thanks  for the prompt reply. Agree on points.

we will validate at our end and shall provide the update.


Nehal
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:19 PM
To: Shah, Nehal-bakulchandra <Nehal-bakulchandra.Shah@amd.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>; linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org; Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>; Xue, Ken <Ken.Xue@amd.com>; S-k, Shyam-sundar <Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com>; stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH] pinctrl/amd: Use regular interrupt instead of chained

Nehal,

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Shah, Nehal-bakulchandra wrote:
> Thanks for the patch. However, we have received this issue from 
> multiple people and different disro but it occurs only on Gigabyte 
> hardware. With reference AM4 ryzen board we are not facing this issue.  
> We are in discussion with gigabyte to check the BIOS part. Once we 
> have clarity on that, we can consider driver part. Also, this code is 
> running on multiple platform of different customers so changing 
> directly at this point of time may be risky in my point of view. 
> Requesting you to hold this patch till we get clarity on bios end.

It does not matter at all whether this is a problem only on GB hardware. Fact is, that this happened and it will happen again.

The patch does not change any functionality of the driver, it merily makes it more robust and spares users the bloody annoying experience of a non booting machine and the tedious task of figuring out why.

The main objective of the kernel is robustness and not pleasing the ego of silicon vendors. We can't prevent the stupidity of BIOS people, we merily can deal with it.

That patch should go into mainline ASAP and backported to stable in order to help those people who bought wreckaged hardware.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [PATCH] pinctrl/amd: Use regular interrupt instead of chained

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 09:33:10AM +0000, Shah, Nehal-bakulchandra wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Thanks  for the prompt reply. Agree on points.
> 
> we will validate at our end and shall provide the update.

First of all, please do not top-post.

What update are you talking about? The patch needs to go in regardless.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH] pinctrl/amd: Use regular interrupt instead of chained

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 09:33:10AM +0000, Shah, Nehal-bakulchandra wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Thanks  for the prompt reply. Agree on points.
> 
> we will validate at our end and shall provide the update.

Any news on the issue? Resolution?

I still have a user reporting "irq 7: nobody cared (try booting with the
"irqpoll" option)" pointing to amd_gpio_irq_handler(), even with Thomas'
patch.

See https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034261

So something's still not completely fine yet.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH] pinctrl/amd: Use regular interrupt instead of chained

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Borislav Petkov wrote:

> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 09:33:10AM +0000, Shah, Nehal-bakulchandra wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > Thanks  for the prompt reply. Agree on points.
> > 
> > we will validate at our end and shall provide the update.
> 
> Any news on the issue? Resolution?
> 
> I still have a user reporting "irq 7: nobody cared (try booting with the
> "irqpoll" option)" pointing to amd_gpio_irq_handler(), even with Thomas'
> patch.
> 
> See https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034261
> 
> So something's still not completely fine yet.

Well, that's kinda expected.

If the interrupt _IS_ screaming because the hardware is buggered, then the
nobody cared thing will detect it and switch it off. That's all what we can
do, aside of not loading the driver at all.

But that's way better than silently locking up the box forever.

Thanks

	tglx

Re: [PATCH] pinctrl/amd: Use regular interrupt instead of chained

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:22:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> If the interrupt _IS_ screaming because the hardware is buggered, then the
> nobody cared thing will detect it and switch it off. That's all what we can
> do, aside of not loading the driver at all.
> 
> But that's way better than silently locking up the box forever.

Sounds to me we should route this fix to stable.

Looking at Linus' branch:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git/commit/?h=fixes&id=ba714a9c1dea85e0bf2899d02dfeb9c70040427c

patch isn't tagged for stable.

Should it be?

It certainly is an improvement of the situation.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.