4.7 regression: ACPI: No IRQ available for PCI Interrupt Link [LNKD]. Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off

Commit Message

Sinan Kaya Sept. 29, 2016, 5:18 p.m. UTC

On 9/29/2016 12:48 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>> Let's see the new set. If this doesn't work, I'll have to provide you with
>> > another patch to get the penalty counts again. The original debug aids
>> > patch may not apply after these.
> It boots but the IRQ problem still remains the same. See the attached logs:
> dmesg-bad.txt: without the irq -> link->irq.active change
> dmesg-bad2.txt: with the irq -> link->irq.active change
> dmesg-bad2-debug.txt: as above with modified debug patch
> 
> @@ -876,8 +893,11 @@ void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
>  {
>         int penalty = active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> 
> -       if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
> +       if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty))) {
>                 acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] += penalty;
> +               pr_info("%s:%d acpi_isa_irq_penalty[%d]=0x%x active = %d\n", 
> __func__,
> +                               __LINE__, irq,  acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq), 
> active);
> +       }
>  }
> 

The previous two patches were in the right direction.

Can we also get the same output from 4.6 kernel with the attached patch for the
same machine you sent these?

Something about SCI still doesn't feel right.

The IRQ assignment fails if the penalty is greater than PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS.
This will happen if BIOS tells us to use an IRQ and same IRQ is in use by the 
SCI.

Comments

Ondrej Zary Sept. 29, 2016, 6 p.m. UTC | #1

On Thursday 29 September 2016 19:18:43 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/29/2016 12:48 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> >> Let's see the new set. If this doesn't work, I'll have to provide you
> >> with
> >>
> >> > another patch to get the penalty counts again. The original debug aids
> >> > patch may not apply after these.
> >
> > It boots but the IRQ problem still remains the same. See the attached
> > logs: dmesg-bad.txt: without the irq -> link->irq.active change
> > dmesg-bad2.txt: with the irq -> link->irq.active change
> > dmesg-bad2-debug.txt: as above with modified debug patch
> >
> > @@ -876,8 +893,11 @@ void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
> >  {
> >         int penalty = active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED :
> > PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> >
> > -       if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
> > +       if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty))) {
> >                 acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] += penalty;
> > +               pr_info("%s:%d acpi_isa_irq_penalty[%d]=0x%x active =
> > %d\n", __func__,
> > +                               __LINE__, irq, 
> > acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq), active);
> > +       }
> >  }
>
> The previous two patches were in the right direction.
>
> Can we also get the same output from 4.6 kernel with the attached patch for
> the same machine you sent these?

Here it is.

> Something about SCI still doesn't feel right.
>
> The IRQ assignment fails if the penalty is greater than
> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS. This will happen if BIOS tells us to use an IRQ
> and same IRQ is in use by the SCI.

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
index ededa90..0bd51f0 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
@@ -541,6 +541,10 @@  static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
 	else
 		irq = link->irq.possible[link->irq.possible_count - 1];
 
+	pr_info("irq : %d\n", irq);
+	pr_info("acpi_irq_balance : %d\n", acpi_irq_balance);
+	pr_info("link->irq.active : %d\n", link->irq.active);
+	pr_info("acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt : %d\n", acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt);
 	if (acpi_irq_balance || !link->irq.active) {
 		/*
 		 * Select the best IRQ.  This is done in reverse to promote
@@ -548,10 +552,21 @@  static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
 		 */
 		for (i = (link->irq.possible_count - 1); i >= 0; i--) {
 			if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >
-			    acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]])
+			    acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]) {
+				pr_info("acpi_irq_get_penalty(%d) : 0x%x\n", link->irq.possible[i], acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]);
+				pr_info("acpi_irq_get_penalty(%d) : 0x%x\n", irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
 				irq = link->irq.possible[i];
+			}
 		}
 	}
+	for (i = (link->irq.possible_count - 1); i >= 0; i--) {
+		pr_info("penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n",
+				link->irq.possible[i],
+		    acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]);
+	}
+	pr_info("irq : %d\n", irq);
+	pr_info("acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt : %d\n", acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt);
+
 	if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
 		printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No IRQ available for %s [%s]. "
 			    "Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off\n",
@@ -569,6 +584,7 @@  static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
 		return -ENODEV;
 	} else {
 		acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+		pr_info("acpi_irq_get_penalty(%d) : 0x%x\n", link->irq.active, acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active]);
 		printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
 		       acpi_device_name(link->device),
 		       acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->irq.active);
@@ -824,6 +840,9 @@  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
 			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
 		else
 			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+
+		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_isa_irq_penalty[%d]=0x%x active = %d\n", __func__,
+				__LINE__, irq,  acpi_irq_penalty[irq], active);
 	}
 }