mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: parport_pc: irq= parameter with limited usefulness, kernel hang on PPC/OldWorldMac
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:14:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100914161433.55457b6f@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C8F88EC.2020009@math.tu-berlin.de>

> *) Under at least 2.6.31 and up, the kernel assigns IRQ 25 to the card. 
> Under 2.6.28 and below, the card
> was run in polling mode (i.e. irq was -1, not 25).
> 
> *) Furthermore, the above report suggests that the system wants to 
> handle an edge-triggered IRQ, though
> according to /proc/interrupts, IRQ 25 is level-triggered.

The parport_pc code just asks for the IRQ so any level/edge mismatch
would appear to be coming from the firmware or architecture code. The
older kernel didn't know to use the IRQ on PCI devices which stopped some
things working and hurt performance. That would also have masked the bug
you see - so the report makes total sense.

> should, according to the documentation and the parport_pc.c source do 
> that. For reasons beyond me, the kernel module wants
> to be smarter than I and *still* enables the IRQ. I'm pretty sure that 

The options only apply to legacy ports - it has always been that way.
It's not clear how you would specify which port to affect otherwise.

> *) parport_pc should take irq=none seriously and should not silently 
> override it,

parport_pc could do with a way to specify whether to use the IRQ or DMA
on PCI ports but really this shouldn't be needed if the rest of the
kernel logic is right.

> *) parport_pc should at least not crash the system completely in case 
> the IRQ is enabled.
> 
> The latter *might* be an issue with the G3 powermac hardware, which is 
> of course weird and has a couple of hardware

The latter looks like a bug in the PPC side support, perhaps misreporting
an IRQ, or mislabelling it in some way. I think the first step is to find
a PPC hacker who can figure out why the apparently sane IRQ request from
the parport layer is exploding.

Even if there is some technical reason the IRQ can't be used then the arch
code shouldn't be reporting an IRQ for it, and the parport_pc could ought
to just work.

Adding Ben to the Cc: so we it can get hunted down.

Alan

  reply	other threads:[~2010-09-14 14:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-14 14:38 Thomas Richter
2010-09-14 15:14 ` Alan Cox [this message]
     [not found] ` <3821_1284476021_4C8F8C75_3821_60120_1_20100914161433.55457b6f@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
2010-09-16 18:41   ` Thomas Richter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100914161433.55457b6f@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=thor@math.tu-berlin.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®