On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 5:05 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 1/15/21 4:38 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > >> This means that skipping the enumeration of a certain device alone is > >> problematic which is a surprise of sorts. > >> > >> Let's see what device that may be. > >> > >> Because the machine booted with the debug patch from Hans, it should also boot > >> with the one below, so please do that and send the output of > >> > >> $ dmesg | grep Dependencies > > > > Yep, boot success with that patch :-) > > > > root@plb-Zotac:~# dmesg | grep Dependencies > > [ 0.426722] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.SDHB: Dependencies found > > [ 0.427927] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.SDHB.BRCM: Dependencies found > > [ 0.431863] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.SDHC: Dependencies found > > [ 0.433128] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.SHC1: Dependencies found > > [ 0.466328] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C1.BATC: Dependencies found > > [ 0.478490] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C3.TIDR: Dependencies found > > [ 0.479851] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C3.ABAT: Dependencies found > > [ 0.480756] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C4: Dependencies found > > [ 0.482605] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C4.CA10: Dependencies found > > [ 0.484464] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C4.CAM9: Dependencies found > > [ 0.485769] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C4.CAM3: Dependencies found > > [ 0.487187] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C4.CAM4: Dependencies found > > [ 0.490563] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C6.TCS0: Dependencies found > > [ 0.492673] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C6.SYN1: Dependencies found > > [ 0.494923] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C7.PMI1: Dependencies found > > [ 0.496528] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C7.PMI2: Dependencies found > > [ 0.498111] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C7.PMI5: Dependencies found > > [ 0.499909] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C7.PMIF: Dependencies found > > [ 0.500891] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C7.PMIC: Dependencies found > > [ 0.502822] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C7.BMDR: Dependencies found > > [ 0.504333] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C7.WIDR: Dependencies found > > [ 0.505689] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.I2C7.BATC: Dependencies found > > [ 0.509734] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.AMCR: Dependencies found > > [ 0.510715] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.TIMC: Dependencies found > > [ 0.516336] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.BRCM: Dependencies found > > Ah, that is enlightening, that is not supposed to happen, that device > has both an _ADR and an _HID method which is not allowed according > to the spec. > > Can you try a clean 5.11 kernel (so none of the previous > debug patches) with the following change added: > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > index 1f27f74cc83c..93954ac3bfcc 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > @@ -1854,7 +1854,8 @@ static u32 acpi_scan_check_dep(acpi_handle handle) > * 2. ACPI nodes describing USB ports. > * Still, checking for _HID catches more then just these cases ... > */ > - if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DEP") || !acpi_has_method(handle, "_HID")) > + if (!acpi_has_method(handle, "_DEP") || !acpi_has_method(handle, "_HID") || > + acpi_has_method(handle, "_ADR")) > return 0; > > status = acpi_evaluate_reference(handle, "_DEP", NULL, &dep_devices); > > > > [ 0.517490] ACPI: \_SB_.PCI0.LNPW: Dependencies found > > And idem. for this one. > > That might very well fix this. It might. That said, there are "interesting" dependencies in those ACPI tables (like on the PMIC which is deferred, because it depends on I2C7 and GP01 and even some power resources depend on it).
