On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 13:03:28 +0100, Rui Salvaterra <rsalvaterra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi again, Marc, > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 09:52, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [snipped] > > > > I guess this is the relevant device? > > Pretty much, yes. > > > It is interesting that it > > advertises not supporting interrupt masking... Can you, you, out of > > curiosity, give the following hack a go? I would expect things to > > behave badly too (and maybe be even worse). But one way or another, it > > may give us a hint. > > > > Thanks, > > > > M. > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/msi.c b/drivers/pci/msi.c > > index 0099a00af361..b3c0b9d07f17 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/msi.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/msi.c > > @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ static void __pci_msi_mask_desc(struct msi_desc *desc, u32 mask) > > > > if (desc->msi_attrib.is_msix) > > pci_msix_mask(desc); > > - else if (desc->msi_attrib.maskbit) > > + else //if (desc->msi_attrib.maskbit) > > pci_msi_mask(desc, mask); > > } > > > > @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void __pci_msi_unmask_desc(struct msi_desc *desc, u32 mask) > > > > if (desc->msi_attrib.is_msix) > > pci_msix_unmask(desc); > > - else if (desc->msi_attrib.maskbit) > > + else //if (desc->msi_attrib.maskbit) > > pci_msi_unmask(desc, mask); > > } > > Hm. You belive the controller is lying? :) 'Believe' is not a word I'd use. I know for a fact that all HW, whether it is present, past or future is only a pile of hacks. Given that your report tends to indicate that we fail to enable the interrupt for this device, this would be a possibility. > Sure thing, I'll give it a spin and let you know the result. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
