[PATCH 00/14] arm_pmu: ACPI support

[Mark Rutland]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:49:19AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 04:14:57PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > I tried these patches on a m400 (which uses PPIs), and the kernel
> > fails to come up enough to login via the network (which works with
> > 4.11rc1 without these patches). So, I suspect there is something
> > wrong with them. 
> 
> Indeed; sorry about this. I'll see if I can get access to a board to try
> local debugging.

> > About the only thing it says with any meaning when earlycon is passed is:
> > [   10.965147] Serial: 8250/16550 driver, 32 ports, IRQ sharing enabled
> > [   11.064193] dw-apb-uart APMC0D08:00: cannot get irq
> > 
> > and promptly hangs up.

I believe that this is a latent FW bug, in a beta FW, exposed by recent
changes.

I managed to get access to two APM Mustang boards. I can reproduce the
issue with a vanilla v4.11-rc1 defconfig on one, which has a beta FW.
The same kernel boots fine on the other, which has a later released FW.

I bisected the issue down to commit:

  d44fa3d46079dc09 ("ACPI: Add support for ResourceSource/IRQ domain mapping")

It seems the beta FW describes the UART interrupt with an Extended
Interrupt Descriptor with the Consumer/Producer bit clear. Per the spec,
this means "This device produces and consumes this resource", which
doesn't make sense here given the UART is not an interrupt controller.

The (working) released FW doesn't use an Extended Interrupt Descriptor
for this interrupt, sidestepping the issue.

Given that (AFAICT) this only affects a known-broken, beta FW, I don't
think that we care that much.

However, I think there is a larger potential issue here.

In acpi_irq_parse_one_cb(), we skip interrupts with an Extended
Interrupt Descriptor with the Consumer/Producer bit clear. It sounds
like devices which behave as interrupt controllers could legitimately
have this bit set for interrupts they generate and deliver to
themselves, and we'd erroneously skip these when parsing interrupts.

It's not entirely clear to me why this bit exists at all, given that
it's not used as part of mapping the interrupt, and if you really want
to know you can map the interrupt and look at the result.

Thanks,
Mark.