Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:25:12 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mfd: intel-lpss: Switch over to MSI interrupts |
| |
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 05:09:53PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:22:16PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 04:01:07PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:21:47PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 04:19:15PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 06:59:05PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
..
> > > > > > - ret = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, 1, 1, PCI_IRQ_LEGACY); > > > > > > + ret = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, 1, 1, PCI_IRQ_ALL_TYPES); > > > > > > if (ret < 0) > > > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > > > > I guess at least some of these devices do support INTx, since we > > > > > always used INTx previously, right? > > > > > > > > > > There are a bunch of bug reports complaining about a lack of _PRT > > > > > entries for them, e.g., these from > > > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212261#c24: > > > > > > > > But this is not related to my patch, and the mentioned bug report seems about > > > > all AMD and Intel platforms. > > > > > > > > Can you, please, elaborate what the relation to my patch? > > > > > > Right, sorry I didn't make that clear; I didn't mean that it was > > > related to your patch. I was just looking at this old bug report > > > about not being able to figure out INTx routing. > > > > > > Your patch had to do with interrupts, so I just wondered whether you > > > had insight into whether these devices actually used INTx. My guess > > > is that at least some of them *do* use INTx, because prior to your > > > patch, the driver *only* tried to use INTx. > > > > > > If it happend that they never use INTx, but advertise INTA via > > > Interrupt Pin, I think that would be a device defect that we might > > > consider a quirk for. > > > > > > If they *do* use INTx, and the _PRT doesn't tell us how it's routed, I > > > think that would be a firmware defect, and ... I dunno what we would > > > do. I guess just avoid using INTx because we don't know where the > > > interupt goes. > > > > Okay, so the revert after all is not required, do you agree? > > Yes, I agree! No indication of problems with your patch, AFAICS. > > If you have any opinions or ideas on the "can't derive routing for PCI > INT A" stuff, I'd still be interested, because it really annoys users.
Got it, thank you for clarification!
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |