Thread (25 messages) 25 messages, 4 authors, 2016-10-24

[PATCH V4 1/3] ACPI, PCI, IRQ: assign ISA IRQ directly during early boot stages

From: helgaas@kernel.org (Bjorn Helgaas)
Date: 2016-10-21 01:39:39
Also in: linux-acpi, linux-arm-msm, linux-pci, lkml

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 06:21:02PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
The penalty determination of ISA IRQ goes through 4 paths.
1. assign PCI_USING during power up via acpi_irq_penalty_init.
2. update the penalty with acpi_penalize_isa_irq function based on the
active parameter.
3. kernel command line penalty update via acpi_irq_penalty_update function.
4. increment the penalty as USING right after the IRQ is assign to PCI.

acpi_penalize_isa_irq and acpi_irq_penalty_update functions get called
before the ACPI subsystem is started.

These API need to bypass the acpi_irq_get_penalty function.
I don't mind this patch, but the changelog doesn't tell me what's
broken and why we need this fix.  Apparently acpi_irq_get_penalty()
doesn't work before ACPI is initialized, but I don't see *why* it
wouldn't work.

However, I see one bug it *does* fix: we do not store the SCI penalty
in the acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] table because acpi_isa_irq_penalty[]
only holds ISA IRQ penalties, and there's no guarantee that the SCI is
an ISA IRQ.  But prior to this patch, we added in the SCI penalty to
the acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] entry when the SCI was an ISA IRQ, which
makes acpi_irq_get_penalty() return the wrong thing.  Consider:

  Initially     acpi_isa_irq_penalty[9] = 0.
  Assume        sci_interrupt = 9.
  Then          acpi_irq_get_penalty(9) returns X.
  If we call    acpi_penalize_isa_irq(9, 1),
  it sets       acpi_isa_irq_penalty[9] = X,
  and now       acpi_irq_get_penalty(9) returns X + X.

I'd propose a changelog like this:

  We do not want to store the SCI penalty in the acpi_isa_irq_penalty[]
  table because acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] only holds ISA IRQ penalties and
  there's no guarantee that the SCI is an ISA IRQ.  We add in the SCI
  penalty as a special case in acpi_irq_get_penalty().

  But if we called acpi_penalize_isa_irq() or acpi_irq_penalty_update()
  for an SCI that happened to be an ISA IRQ, they stored the SCI
  penalty (part of the acpi_irq_get_penalty() return value) in
  acpi_isa_irq_penalty[].  Subsequent calls to acpi_irq_get_penalty()
  returned a penalty that included *two* SCI penalties.

If this actually fixes a worse problem related to ACPI initialization,
of course you should detail that.

Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <redacted>
---
 drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
index c983bf7..4f37938 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
@@ -849,7 +849,7 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
 			continue;
 
 		if (used)
-			new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
+			new_penalty = acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] +
 					PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
 		else
 			new_penalty = 0;
@@ -871,7 +871,7 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
 void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
 {
 	if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
-		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
+		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] +
 		  (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
 }
 
-- 
1.9.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help