On Wednesday, March 20, 2024 8:29:55 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, March 19, 2024 5:20:41 PM CET Adrian Hunter wrote: > > On 19/03/24 16:43, Francisco Ayala Le Brun wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I would like to report a bug. > > > > > > Issue description: > > > After updating a GHF51 SBC to a newer kernel version, the system was > > > > What was the older / working kernel version? Are you able > > to git bisect? > > > > > no longer able to boot. Running the "lsblk" command in the recovery > > > console showed no mmc storage detected. > > > > > > System Information: > > > OS: Fedora 40 x86_64 > > > Kernel: 6.8.0-0.rc6.49.fc40.x86_64 > > > > > > Relevant Logs: > > > > Really no error / fail messages before the stack dump? > > > > > [ 10.920756] Call Trace: > > > [ 10.920763] <TASK> > > > [ 10.920771] dump_stack_lvl+0x4d/0x70 > > > [ 10.920786] __setup_irq+0x530/0x6c0 > > > [ 10.920801] request_threaded_irq+0xe5/0x180 > > > [ 10.920813] ? __pfx_sdhci_thread_irq+0x10/0x10 [sdhci] > > > [ 10.920843] __sdhci_add_host+0x108/0x360 [sdhci] > > > [ 10.920871] sdhci_acpi_probe+0x3a8/0x500 [sdhci_acpi] > > > [ 10.920894] platform_probe+0x44/0xa0 > > > [ 10.920908] really_probe+0x19e/0x3e0 > > > [ 10.930244] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x160 > > > [ 10.930264] driver_probe_device+0x1f/0xa0 > > > [ 10.930273] __driver_attach_async_helper+0x5e/0xe0 > > > [ 10.930284] async_run_entry_fn+0x34/0x130 > > > [ 10.930296] process_one_work+0x170/0x330 > > > [ 10.930309] worker_thread+0x273/0x3c0 > > > [ 10.934639] ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 > > > [ 10.934654] kthread+0xe8/0x120 > > > [ 10.934663] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 > > > [ 10.934671] ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 > > > [ 10.934681] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 > > > [ 10.934688] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30 > > > [ 10.934708] </TASK> > > > [ 10.940978] mmc0: Failed to request IRQ 7: -16 > > > [ 10.943885] sdhci-acpi: probe of AMDI0040:00 failed with error -16 > > > > 16 is EBUSY which seems to be used by __setup_irq() for > > irq mismatch > > Would you be able to test the patch below and see if it helps? > > --- > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c | 2 +- > include/linux/interrupt.h | 5 ++++- > kernel/irq/manage.c | 13 +++++++++++-- > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-pm/include/linux/interrupt.h > =================================================================== > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/interrupt.h > @@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ > * later. > * IRQF_NO_DEBUG - Exclude from runnaway detection for IPI and similar handlers, > * depends on IRQF_PERCPU. > + * IRQF_COND_ONESHOT - Agree to do IRQF_ONESHOT if already set for a shared > + * interrupt. > */ > #define IRQF_SHARED 0x00000080 > #define IRQF_PROBE_SHARED 0x00000100 > @@ -82,6 +84,7 @@ > #define IRQF_COND_SUSPEND 0x00040000 > #define IRQF_NO_AUTOEN 0x00080000 > #define IRQF_NO_DEBUG 0x00100000 > +#define IRQF_COND_ONESHOT 0x00200000 > > #define IRQF_TIMER (__IRQF_TIMER | IRQF_NO_SUSPEND | IRQF_NO_THREAD) > We actually can get away without defining a new IRQ flag, as in the patch below. It is not super-clean, but should do the work. Linus, what do you think? --- drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c | 13 ++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: linux-pm/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c @@ -1159,7 +1159,18 @@ static int amd_gpio_probe(struct platfor } ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, gpio_dev->irq, amd_gpio_irq_handler, - IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_ONESHOT, KBUILD_MODNAME, gpio_dev); + IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_PROBE_SHARED, KBUILD_MODNAME, + gpio_dev); + /* + * There can be a flags mismatch if IRQF_ONESHOT has been set for the + * IRQ already, so if the error code indicates that, try again with + * IRQF_ONESHOT set. + */ + if (ret == -EBUSY) + ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, gpio_dev->irq, amd_gpio_irq_handler, + IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_ONESHOT, KBUILD_MODNAME, + gpio_dev); + if (ret) goto out2;
