Hi Greg,
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:54:34AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 08:32:01AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 02:59:18PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > commit 9d0273bb1c4b64 ("genirq: Use irqd_get_trigger_type to compare the trigger
> > > type for shared IRQs") causes a regression in v4.4.124. The problem has been fixed
> > > upstream with commit 4f8413a3a799 ("genirq: Track whether the trigger type has
> > > been set"). Please apply that patch to v4.4.y at your earliest convenience.
> > >
> > > The patch does not apply cleanly; you'll get a conflict include/linux/irq.h.
> > > The fix is simple - just take the version introduced by the patch. It adds
> > > a couple of extra defines, but those don't hurt and just keep the code aligned
> > > with upstream.
> >
> > Thanks, this was also needed for 4.9.y and 3.18.y.
> >
>
> Odd that I didn't see the problem there. But then I still see the following
> in 4.4.y after the above was added.
>
> genirq: Flags mismatch irq 24. 00000080 ([PCI] PME) vs. 00000080 ([EDAC] PCI err)
>
> This is with powerpc:mpc8544ds:mpc85xx_defconfig. I do _not_ see this problem
> in v4.9+.
>
> Looks like I'll need to spend more time on this.
>
I confirmed that this is still broken in 4.4.y, even after 4f8413a3a799 has been applied.
Example output on a Acer 15.6" APL Chromebook, with both patches applied:
[ 0.240913] gpiochip_find_base: found new base at 434
[ 0.240956] gpiochip_add_data: registered GPIOs 434 to 511 on device: INT3452:00
[ 0.240960] GPIO chip INT3452:00: created GPIO range 0->77 ==> INT3452:00 PIN 0->77
[ 0.241311] gpiochip_find_base: found new base at 357
[ 0.241347] gpiochip_add_data: registered GPIOs 357 to 433 on device: INT3452:01
[ 0.241350] GPIO chip INT3452:01: created GPIO range 0->76 ==> INT3452:01 PIN 0->76
[ 0.241353] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 14. 00000080 (INT3452:01) vs. 00000080 (INT3452:00)
[ 0.242055] broxton-pinctrl INT3452:01: failed to request interrupt
[ 0.242696] broxton-pinctrl: probe of INT3452:01 failed with error -16
[ 0.243452] gpiochip_find_base: found new base at 387
[ 0.243490] gpiochip_add_data: registered GPIOs 387 to 433 on device: INT3452:02
[ 0.243493] GPIO chip INT3452:02: created GPIO range 0->46 ==> INT3452:02 PIN 0->46
[ 0.243496] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 14. 00000080 (INT3452:02) vs. 00000080 (INT3452:00)
[ 0.244195] broxton-pinctrl INT3452:02: failed to request interrupt
[ 0.244813] broxton-pinctrl: probe of INT3452:02 failed with error -16
[ 0.245549] gpiochip_find_base: found new base at 391
[ 0.245585] gpiochip_add_data: registered GPIOs 391 to 433 on device: INT3452:03
[ 0.245588] GPIO chip INT3452:03: created GPIO range 0->42 ==> INT3452:03 PIN 0->42
[ 0.245591] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 14. 00000080 (INT3452:03) vs. 00000080 (INT3452:00)
[ 0.246322] broxton-pinctrl INT3452:03: failed to request interrupt
[ 0.246912] broxton-pinctrl: probe of INT3452:03 failed with error -16
Reverting 9d0273bb1c4b64 after the v4.4.124 merge into chromeos-4.4 fixes
the problem.
At this point I got a bit frantic and decided to try the shotgun approach.
I applied
4b357daed698 genirq: Look-up trigger type if not specified by caller
f35ad083783e genirq: Look-up percpu trigger type if not specified by caller
00b992deaa08 genirq: No need to mask non trigger mode flags before __irq_set_trigger()
7ee7e87dfb15 genirq: Use irq type from irqdata instead of irqdesc
(minor conflicts due to pr_warning -> pr_warn)
on top of v4.4.124. With those patches applied, the problem went away, both
on the Acer Chromebook and the qemu test which previously failed. Note that
I have _no_ idea if this is correct, necessary, and/or complete. All I know
is that it fixes the problems I have found so far.
Overall question is why 9d0273bb1c4b64 was applied to v4.4.y in the first place.
It does cause a whole lot of trouble. Was that really worth it ?
Guenter