[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZgM8iExkz5S6reeq@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 23:22:16 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mfd: intel-lpss: Switch over to MSI interrupts
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 04:01:07PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:21:47PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 04:19:15PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 06:59:05PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
..
> > > > - ret = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, 1, 1, PCI_IRQ_LEGACY);
> > > > + ret = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, 1, 1, PCI_IRQ_ALL_TYPES);
> > > > if (ret < 0)
> > > > return ret;
> > >
> > > I guess at least some of these devices do support INTx, since we
> > > always used INTx previously, right?
> > >
> > > There are a bunch of bug reports complaining about a lack of _PRT
> > > entries for them, e.g., these from
> > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212261#c24:
> >
> > But this is not related to my patch, and the mentioned bug report seems about
> > all AMD and Intel platforms.
> >
> > Can you, please, elaborate what the relation to my patch?
>
> Right, sorry I didn't make that clear; I didn't mean that it was
> related to your patch. I was just looking at this old bug report
> about not being able to figure out INTx routing.
>
> Your patch had to do with interrupts, so I just wondered whether you
> had insight into whether these devices actually used INTx. My guess
> is that at least some of them *do* use INTx, because prior to your
> patch, the driver *only* tried to use INTx.
>
> If it happend that they never use INTx, but advertise INTA via
> Interrupt Pin, I think that would be a device defect that we might
> consider a quirk for.
>
> If they *do* use INTx, and the _PRT doesn't tell us how it's routed, I
> think that would be a firmware defect, and ... I dunno what we would
> do. I guess just avoid using INTx because we don't know where the
> interupt goes.
Okay, so the revert after all is not required, do you agree?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists