On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 10:58 +0100, ext Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Kauppi Ari (EXT-Ixonos/Oulu) wrote:
>
> > My process was:
> >
> > 1) Take 2.6.28-based kernel on custom OMAP3430ES3.0 hardware with
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP enabled. There are no spurious interrupts and
> > everything works.
> >
> > 2) Disable CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP and all other kernel debugging options.
> > Spurious interrupts start to appear on several IRQs, especially with IRQ
> > 56 (I2C1).
> >
> > 3) Apply Richard's patch. All spurious interrupts for IRQ 56 are gone
> > but frequency of others increase.
> >
> > 4) Set IRQF_DISABLED in i2c-omap and the frequency of other spurious
> > interrupts decreases considerably. However, I'm starting to realize that
> > the real problem is probably elsewhere.
> >
> > My test setup is pretty systematic, it does not have any user
> > interaction in it. I have a relay controlling the power to the device
> > and have taken logs of about 12000 boots with different kernel options
> > and patches applied.
>
> Thanks for the details. Can you extract the list of spurious IRQ warnings
> that you're getting, and post them? I suspect that, like I2C, many of the
> driver ISRs are not reading back the device interrupt status registers
> after they clear them.
Sure,
Here is "grep -hoa 'write for irq.*' *.log | sort | uniq -c" from the
most problematic case (step 2 in above process). It should be noted that
the messages are always in pairs, ie. there are two consecutive messages
in the logs with only microseconds between them. I have divided the
counts reported by uniq -c by two in the list below.
Boot count: 6628
1 write for irq 12
1 write for irq 25
1 write for irq 33
10 write for irq 37
29532 write for irq 56
12 write for irq 67
1 write for irq 71
281 write for irq 73
114 write for irq 83
407 write for irq 86
I have also heard that with other use cases irq 17 and 21 should be in
the list, too. The single ones from 12,25,33,71 are probably just
one-offs and should not be taken too seriously, 37/67 are corner cases
but 73/83/86 are definitely valid measurements.
Best regards,
--
Ari
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
