[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220927192828.GA1723692@bhelgaas>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 14:28:28 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Mateusz Jończyk <mat.jonczyk@...pl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] acpi,pci: handle duplicate IRQ routing entries
returned from _PRT
On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 11:09:44AM +0200, Mateusz Jończyk wrote:
> On some platforms, the ACPI _PRT function returns duplicate interrupt
> routing entries. Linux uses the first matching entry, but sometimes the
> second matching entry contains the correct interrupt vector.
>
> This happens on a Dell Latitude E6500 laptop with the i2c-i801 Intel
> SMBus controller. This controller was nonfunctional unless its interrupt
> usage was disabled (using the "disable_features=0x10" module parameter).
>
> After investigation, it turned out that the driver was using an
> incorrect interrupt vector: in lspci output for this device there was:
> Interrupt: pin B routed to IRQ 19
> but after running i2cdetect (without using any i2c-i801 module
> parameters) the following was logged to dmesg:
>
> [...]
> [ 132.248657] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Timeout waiting for interrupt!
> [ 132.248669] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Transaction timeout
> [ 132.452649] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Timeout waiting for interrupt!
> [ 132.452662] i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Transaction timeout
> [ 132.467682] irq 17: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
Drop the timestamps; they add clutter but not useful information.
> Existence of duplicate entries in a table returned by the _PRT method
> was confirmed by disassembling the ACPI DSTD table.
>
> Linux used the first matching entry, which was incorrect. In order not
> to disrupt existing systems, use the first matching entry unless the
> pci=prtlast kernel parameter is used or a Dell Latitude E6500 laptop is
> detected.
Do we have a reason to believe that in general, using the first
matching entry is incorrect? I don't see anything in the ACPI spec
(r6.5, sec 6.2.13) that sheds light on this.
Presumably this works on Windows, and I doubt Windows would have a
platform quirk for this, so I hypothesize that Windows treats _PRT
entries as assignments, and the last one rules. Maybe Linux should
adopt that rule?
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists