[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87lebtcjnr.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:50:48 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, kys@...rosoft.com,
hpa@...ux.intel.com
Cc: x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: PIC probing code from e179f6914152 failing
On Mon, Oct 23 2023 at 11:17, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 10/23/2023 10:59, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> IOW NULL pic case has IORESOURCE_DISABLED / IORESOURCE_UNSET
>>
>> So the real question is WHY are the DISABLED/UNSET flags not set in the
>> PIC case?
Do you have an answer for this?
>>> NULL case:
>>> handler: handle_edge_irq
>>> dstate: 0x3740c208
>>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW
>>>
>>> PIC case:
>>> handler: handle_fasteoi_irq
>>> dstate: 0x3740e208
>>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW
>>> IRQD_LEVEL
>>>
>>> I guess something related to the callpath for mp_register_handler().
>>
>> Guessing is not helpful.
>>
>> There is a difference in how the allocation info is set up when legacy
>> PIC is enabled, but that does not explain the above resource flag
>> difference.
>
> I did a pile of printks and that's how I realized it's because of the
> missing call to mp_register_handler() which is dependent upon what
> appeared to me to be a superfluous number of legacy IRQs check (patch 1
> in my solution).
What exactly is superfluous about these legacy checks?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists