[PATCH 00/14] arm_pmu: ACPI support
hanjun.guo at linaro.org
Tue Mar 14 19:49:53 PDT 2017
On 2017/3/15 6:06, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> On 2017-03-14 14:47, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> 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
>>> > [ 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
>> 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
>> 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.
> I think the best approach would be to try to amend the spec and make
> zero mean producer only which is the way it is being treated in Linux.
> That would mean that a device consuming its own interrupts would have to
> have two resources, one for describing the resource as producer and one
> as consumer.
Agreed. I think it's a typo in the spec, should be only produce resource
if it's 0, and that's the behavior in ACPICA core now (both used by
linux kernel and windows).
> Unfortunately the spec is vague in some areas like the feature we used
> to implement secondary IRQ controllers which require this patch.
> Hanjun, can you bring this up at the next ASWG meeting? I don't normally
> attend but I will ask our ASWG lead to invite me so we can discuss this
> in that forum.
I will do that, and I will send an email to report this issue first with
you and Mark CCed.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel