On 12/8/2015 3:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 01:58:55PM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> The ACPI compiler uses the extended format when used interrupt numbers
>> are greater than 15. The extended IRQ is 32 bits according to the ACPI
>> spec. The code supports parsing the extended interrupt numbers. However,
>> due to used data structure type; the code silently truncates interrupt
>> numbers greater than 256.
>>
>> First, this patch changes the interrupt number type to 32 bits. Next, the
>> penalty array has been limited to 16 for ISA IRQs. Finally, a new penalty
>> linklist has been added for all other interrupts greater than 16. If an IRQ
>> is not found in the link list, an IRQ info structure will be dynamically
>> allocated on the first access and will be placed on the list for further
>> reuse. The list will grow by the number of supported interrupts in the
>> ACPI table rather than having a 256 hard limitation.
>
> Can you split this into two patches? One to replace the penalty
> storage scheme, and a second to change the interrupt number types
> from u8 to u32?
I'll post a patch soon
>
> Generally looks good to me. Tracking all the penalty information
> still seems clunky, but I don't have any great ideas of better ways.
> I have a few minor comments below; when you address them, you can add
> my:
>
> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
thanks
>
>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 104 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
>> index 7c8408b..e10661f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>> * Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 Andy Grover <andrew.grover@xxxxxxxxx>
>> * Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 Paul Diefenbaugh <paul.s.diefenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>
>> * Copyright (C) 2002 Dominik Brodowski <devel@xxxxxxxx>
>> + * Copyright (c) 2015, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
>> *
>> * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> *
>> @@ -67,12 +68,12 @@ static struct acpi_scan_handler pci_link_handler = {
>> * later even the link is disable. Instead, we just repick the active irq
>> */
>> struct acpi_pci_link_irq {
>> - u8 active; /* Current IRQ */
>> + u32 active; /* Current IRQ */
>> u8 triggering; /* All IRQs */
>> u8 polarity; /* All IRQs */
>> u8 resource_type;
>> u8 possible_count;
>> - u8 possible[ACPI_PCI_LINK_MAX_POSSIBLE];
>> + u32 possible[ACPI_PCI_LINK_MAX_POSSIBLE];
>> u8 initialized:1;
>> u8 reserved:7;
>> };
>> @@ -437,8 +438,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
>> * enabled system.
>> */
>>
>> -#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS 256
>> -#define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ 16
>> + #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ 16
>
> Extra leading space here.
Done.
>
>> #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE (0)
>> #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE (16*16)
>> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
>> #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED (16*16*16*16*16)
>> #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS (16*16*16*16*16*16)
>>
>> -static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
>> +static int acpi_irq_isa_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ] = {
>> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS, /* IRQ0 timer */
>> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS, /* IRQ1 keyboard */
>> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS, /* IRQ2 cascade */
>> @@ -464,9 +464,61 @@ static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
>> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED, /* IRQ13 fpe, sometimes */
>> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED, /* IRQ14 ide0 */
>> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED, /* IRQ15 ide1 */
>> - /* >IRQ15 */
>> };
>>
>> +struct irq_penalty_info {
>> + unsigned int irq;
>> + int penalty;
>> + struct list_head node;
>> +};
>> +
>> +LIST_HEAD(acpi_irq_penalty_list);
>
> Should be static.
OK
>
>> +static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_penalty_info *irq_info;
>> +
>> + if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ)
>> + return acpi_irq_isa_penalty[irq];
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(irq_info, &acpi_irq_penalty_list, node) {
>> + if (irq_info->irq == irq)
>> + return irq_info->penalty;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int acpi_irq_set_penalty(int irq, unsigned int new_penalty)
>
> "int new_penalty" to match irq_info->penalty and acpi_irq_get_penalty()
> return type.
Done
>
>> +{
>> + struct irq_penalty_info *irq_info;
>> +
>> + /* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
>> + if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ) {
>> + acpi_irq_isa_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* next, try to locate from the dynamic list */
>> + list_for_each_entry(irq_info, &acpi_irq_penalty_list, node) {
>> + if (irq_info->irq == irq) {
>> + irq_info->penalty = new_penalty;
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* nope, let's allocate a slot for this IRQ */
>> + irq_info = kzalloc(sizeof(*irq_info), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!irq_info)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + irq_info->irq = irq;
>> + irq_info->penalty = new_penalty;
>> + list_add_tail(&irq_info->node, &acpi_irq_penalty_list);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> An "acpi_irq_add_penalty(int irq, int penalty)" here would simplify
> most of the calls below:
>
> static void acpi_irq_add_penalty(int irq, int penalty)
> {
> int current = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq);
>
> acpi_irq_set_penalty(irq, current + penalty);
> }
>
Good idea.
>> +
>> int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
>> {
>> struct acpi_pci_link *link;
>> @@ -487,15 +539,22 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
>> link->irq.possible_count;
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
>> - if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ)
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
>> - possible[i]] +=
>> - penalty;
>> + if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ) {
>> + int irqpos = link->irq.possible[i];
>> + int curpen;
>> +
>> + curpen = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irqpos);
>> + curpen += penalty;
>> + acpi_irq_set_penalty(irqpos, curpen);
>
> acpi_irq_add_penalty(link->irq.possible[i], penalty);
>
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> } else if (link->irq.active) {
>
> You didn't change this, but the "else" here looks wrong to me: if we
> got any IRQs from _PRS, we never add PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE to the
> active IRQ.
>
> It also seems wrong that we loop through everything on acpi_link_list.
> It would be better if we could do this for each link as it is
> enumerated in acpi_pci_link_add(), so any hot-added links would be
> handled the same way.
>
> These are both pre-existing issues/questions, so I don't think you're
> obligated to address them.
I'll leave them alone for now.
>
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
>> - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
>> + int curpen;
>> +
>> + curpen = acpi_irq_get_penalty(link->irq.active);
>> + curpen += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
>> + acpi_irq_set_penalty(link->irq.active, curpen);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> @@ -547,12 +606,12 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
>> * the use of IRQs 9, 10, 11, and >15.
>> */
>> for (i = (link->irq.possible_count - 1); i >= 0; i--) {
>> - if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]])
>> + if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >
>> + acpi_irq_get_penalty(link->irq.possible[i]))
>> irq = link->irq.possible[i];
>> }
>> }
>> - if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
>> + if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
>> printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No IRQ available for %s [%s]. "
>> "Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off\n",
>> acpi_device_name(link->device),
>> @@ -568,7 +627,12 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
>> acpi_device_bid(link->device));
>> return -ENODEV;
>> } else {
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>> + int curpen;
>> +
>> + curpen = acpi_irq_get_penalty(link->irq.active);
>> + curpen += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>> + acpi_irq_set_penalty(link->irq.active, curpen);
>> +
>> printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
>> acpi_device_name(link->device),
>> acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->irq.active);
>> @@ -778,7 +842,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
>> + * modify penalty from cmdline
>> */
>> static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>> {
>> @@ -796,13 +860,15 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>> if (irq < 0)
>> continue;
>>
>> - if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
>> - continue;
>> + if (used) {
>> + int curpen;
>>
>> - if (used)
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
>> + curpen = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq);
>> + curpen += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
>> + acpi_irq_set_penalty(irq, curpen);
>> + }
>> else
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE;
>> + acpi_irq_set_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE);
>>
>> if (retval != 2) /* no next number */
>> break;
>> @@ -819,18 +885,22 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>> */
>> void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
>> {
>> - if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
>> + if (irq >= 0) {
>
> I would structure this as:
>
> if (irq < 0)
> return;
>
> if (active)
> acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED);
> else
> acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>
> But that might be just my personal preference. Similarly in
> acpi_penalize_sci_irq() below.
OK, cleaner.
>
>> + int curpen;
>> +
>> + curpen = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq);
>> if (active)
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
>> + curpen += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
>> else
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>> + curpen += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>> + acpi_irq_set_penalty(irq, curpen);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>> {
>> - return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
>> + return irq >= 0 &&
>> + (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -840,12 +910,16 @@ bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>> */
>> void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
>> {
>> - if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
>> + if (irq >= 0) {
>> + int curpen;
>> +
>> + curpen = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq);
>> if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
>> polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>> + curpen += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>> else
>> - acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>> + curpen += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>> + acpi_irq_set_penalty(irq, curpen);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> --
>> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
