linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mfd: intel-lpss: Switch over to MSI interrupts

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZgLo2sbncwlkAOZE@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:25:14 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mateusz K <mateusz.kaduk@...il.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mfd: intel-lpss: Switch over to MSI interrupts

Please, do not top post in the mailing lists!

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 03:50:37PM +0100, Mateusz K wrote:
> Maybe it's much to ask, but I would really appreciate it if someone
> looked into intel-lpss supporting these devices.
> Been using a laptop without a functional touchpad over months now.
> If that helps, there is another thread here
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218444 with perhaps more
> details on the problem.
> Battery and speaker are not a big deal, but the not working touchpad,
> which I believe should be handled by an intel-lpss driver, is kind of
> painful.
> If you need any help from my side, testing patches, don't hesitate to
> contact me.

I will look at the report closer, but I can't guarantee anything.

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 3:41 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:06:38AM +0100, Mateusz K wrote:
> > > I tried the patch that changes PCI_IRQ_LEGACY into PCI_IRQ_ALL_TYPES
> > > and it seems I get some other error now
> > >
> > > [    1.477341] intel-lpss 0000:00:15.0: enabling device (0004 -> 0006)
> > > [    1.477466] intel-lpss 0000:00:15.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> > > [    1.477468] intel-lpss 0000:00:15.0: PCI INT A: not connected
> > > [    1.477488] intel-lpss 0000:00:15.0: probe with driver intel-lpss
> > > failed with error -2147483648
> > > [    1.489572] intel-lpss 0000:00:15.2: enabling device (0004 -> 0006)
> > > [    1.489688] intel-lpss 0000:00:15.2: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
> > > [    1.489689] intel-lpss 0000:00:15.2: PCI INT C: not connected
> > > [    1.489715] intel-lpss 0000:00:15.2: probe with driver intel-lpss
> > > failed with error -2147483648
> > > [    1.501886] intel-lpss 0000:00:19.0: enabling device (0004 -> 0006)
> > > [    1.502034] intel-lpss 0000:00:19.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> > > [    1.502036] intel-lpss 0000:00:19.0: PCI INT A: not connected
> > > [    1.502067] intel-lpss 0000:00:19.0: probe with driver intel-lpss
> > > failed with error -2147483648
> > > [    1.514288] intel-lpss 0000:00:19.1: enabling device (0004 -> 0006)
> > > [    1.514535] intel-lpss 0000:00:19.1: can't derive routing for PCI INT B
> > > [    1.514538] intel-lpss 0000:00:19.1: PCI INT B: not connected
> > > [    1.514570] intel-lpss 0000:00:19.1: probe with driver intel-lpss
> > > failed with error -2147483648
> > > [    1.526291] intel-lpss 0000:00:1e.0: enabling device (0004 -> 0006)
> > > [    1.526555] intel-lpss 0000:00:1e.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> > > [    1.526557] intel-lpss 0000:00:1e.0: PCI INT A: not connected
> > > [    1.526604] intel-lpss 0000:00:1e.0: probe with driver intel-lpss
> > > failed with error -2147483648
> > > [    1.538130] intel-lpss 0000:00:1e.3: enabling device (0004 -> 0006)
> > > [    1.538233] intel-lpss 0000:00:1e.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT D
> > > [    1.538235] intel-lpss 0000:00:1e.3: PCI INT D: not connected
> > > [    1.538253] intel-lpss 0000:00:1e.3: probe with driver intel-lpss
> > > failed with error -2147483648
> >
> > Hmm... I have a unique board to test :-)
> > Let's revert it then.
> >
> > Bjorn, in such case your tree should keep conversion one.
> >
> > Lee, do you prefer a revert or can you simply drop this from the queue?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko