On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 06:57:03PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Tuesday 18 July 2023 06:19:52 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 12:03:17AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > Hello, I have just one question. What do you want to do with pci-mvebu > > > driver? It is already marked as broken for 3 kernel releases and I do > > > not see any progress from anybody (and you rejected my fixes). How long > > > do you want it to have marked as broken? > > > > I don't think "depends on BROKEN" necessarily means that we plan to > > remove the driver. I think it just means that it's currently broken, > > but we hope to fix it eventually. > > > > I think the problem here is the regular vs chained interrupt handlers, > > right? Radu has been looking at that recently, too, so maybe we can > > have another go at it. > > I guess that this is the main issue as all other fixes and improvements > are stalled. If these other things don't depend on this IRQ issue, maybe we could still make progress on them? Maybe post them again (rebasing to v6.5-rc1 if necessary)? Often I forget or miss things, so it doesn't hurt to try again if you don't hear anything. > Just to remind that we have there shared interrupt source > (which can be requested by more HW drivers) and consumer is PCIe INTX > which is de-facto chained handler. And I have not seen anything for > shared interrupt source except request_irq(IRQF_SHARED) which you do not > want to use for shared interrupts anymore. Also setting of PCIe INTX > affinity is broken which worked fine with the previous kernel versions. > And you also rejected fixes for this regression. This sounds like the issue where we haven't figured out how to make both Marc and Thomas happy at the same time. I don't know much about IRQs, but I'm still optimistic that it may be possible because I don't think there's anything really unique about mvebu here. Bjorn
