From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, LKP ML <lkp@01.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:37:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55190B4E.7080708@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55190910.3010905@linux.intel.com>
On 2015/3/30 16:28, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> Ying,
>
> can you please try this patch to see if the problem is gone on your side?
Hi Aubrey,
I would be better if we could change RTC driver instead.
Thanks!
Gerry
>
> Thanks,
> -Aubrey
>
>
> On 2015/3/26 20:13, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote:
>>> [ 28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)
>>
>> okay, I replicated this on my side now.
>>
>> Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch
>> exposes a few issues FWICT currently:
>>
>> - Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in
>> hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM
>> block are not valid(register address = 0)
>>
>> - I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource
>> under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The
>> question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we
>> assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then
>> requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine.
>>
>> - Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request
>> IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets
>> irq8, so we saw "genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs.
>> 00000000 (rtc0)". So here is another question, when we dynamically
>> allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if
>> allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start
>> from IRQ1.
>>
>> What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq
>> from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign
>> IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every
>> IRQ dynamically.
>>
>> For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update
>> allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI
>> registers are not valid.
>>
>> Certainly I'm open to any suggestions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Aubrey
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-30 8:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-20 8:38 Huang Ying
2015-03-23 6:18 ` Li, Aubrey
2015-03-24 0:53 ` Huang Ying
2015-03-24 2:16 ` Li, Aubrey
2015-03-24 5:34 ` Li, Aubrey
2015-03-25 7:22 ` Huang Ying
2015-03-26 12:13 ` Li, Aubrey
2015-03-30 8:28 ` Li, Aubrey
2015-03-30 8:37 ` Jiang Liu [this message]
2015-03-30 12:19 ` Li, Aubrey
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=55190B4E.7080708@linux.intel.com \
--to=jiang.liu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome