On Thursday, March 12, 2015 09:41:21 AM Jiang Liu wrote: > On 2015/3/12 9:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:04:42 PM Luck, Tony wrote: > >>>> Unfortunately there's a long standing comment in pci_device_remove(): > >>>> > >>>> /* > >>>> * We would love to complain here if pci_dev->is_enabled is set, that > >>>> * the driver should have called pci_disable_device(), but the > >>>> * unfortunate fact is there are too many odd BIOS and bridge setups > >>>> * that don't like drivers doing that all of the time. > >>>> * Oh well, we can dream of sane hardware when we sleep, no matter how > >>>> * horrible the crap we have to deal with is when we are awake... > >>>> */ > >>>> > >>>> So, unless we can somehow ignore that comment, I suspect forcing the > >>>> device to be disabled on driver remove, whether done from pci-core or > >>>> from x86/pci, is going to cause all sorts of breakage. Are the > >>>> expectations set by b4b55cda5874 really valid? It seems like something > >>>> needs to be done to allow the IRQ to be automatically re-established on > >>>> x86 regardless of the driver doing the right thing when releasing the > >>>> device. We're still looking at a regression for v4.0 as a result of > >>>> b4b55cda5874. > >>> > >>> In which case we probably should revert commit b4b55cda5874 for the time being. > >>> > >>> At least I'd be very nervous about any ad-hoc fixes at this stage of the cycle. > >> > >> The comment goes back to the dawn of "git" time ... not sure how much further > >> back. > >> > >> Is this actually still an issue on modern systems? Maybe we need a black list > >> or white list to separate the good from bad systems? > > > > The answer to that is "We don't know" and in my not so humble opinion it is too > > risky to try to find out at the end of the cycle. > Hi Rafael and Alex, > How about a patch which: > 1) gives a warning if PCI device is still enabled when unloading driver That may become sort of noisy. I really would prefer to introduce things like that by the beginning of the cycle, not by the end of it. > 2) release PCI interrupt only if PCI device is disabled. > By this way, we could support IOAPIC hot-removal on latest platforms and > avoid regressions on old platforms. Well, please submit a patch for discussion. I would like to know Bjorn's opinion about that too at least. Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
