Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-30 Thread Li, Aubrey
On 2015/3/30 16:37, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 2015/3/30 16:28, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Ying,
>>
>> can you please try this patch to see if the problem is gone on your side?
> Hi Aubrey,
>   I would be better if we could change RTC driver instead.

Hey Gerry,

IRQ8 for RTC is for history reason. If we dynamically assign IRQ to RTC,
it might be a mess for legacy machine. If we still use IRQ8 for RTC but
dynamically assign IRQ to other components, then there is a race IRQ8
being used before RTC driver is loaded.

So, statically assigning IRQ is the best choice in my mind, this also
matches the original IRQ assign policy.

Thanks,
-Aubrey

> Thanks!
> Gerry
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Aubrey
>>
>>
>> On 2015/3/26 20:13, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>> On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote:
 [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
 (rtc0)
>>>
>>> okay, I replicated this on my side now.
>>>
>>> Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch
>>> exposes a few issues FWICT currently:
>>>
>>> - Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in
>>> hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM
>>> block are not valid(register address = 0)
>>>
>>> - I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource
>>> under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The
>>> question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we
>>> assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then
>>> requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine.
>>>
>>> - Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request
>>> IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets
>>> irq8, so we saw "genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.
>>>  (rtc0)". So here is another question, when we dynamically
>>> allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if
>>> allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start
>>> from IRQ1.
>>>
>>> What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq
>>> from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign
>>> IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every
>>> IRQ dynamically.
>>>
>>> For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update
>>> allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI
>>> registers are not valid.
>>>
>>> Certainly I'm open to any suggestions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Aubrey
>>>
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-30 Thread Jiang Liu
On 2015/3/30 16:28, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> Ying,
> 
> can you please try this patch to see if the problem is gone on your side?
Hi Aubrey,
I would be better if we could change RTC driver instead.
Thanks!
Gerry
> 
> Thanks,
> -Aubrey
> 
> 
> On 2015/3/26 20:13, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote:
>>> [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
>>> (rtc0)
>>
>> okay, I replicated this on my side now.
>>
>> Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch
>> exposes a few issues FWICT currently:
>>
>> - Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in
>> hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM
>> block are not valid(register address = 0)
>>
>> - I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource
>> under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The
>> question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we
>> assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then
>> requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine.
>>
>> - Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request
>> IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets
>> irq8, so we saw "genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.
>>  (rtc0)". So here is another question, when we dynamically
>> allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if
>> allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start
>> from IRQ1.
>>
>> What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq
>> from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign
>> IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every
>> IRQ dynamically.
>>
>> For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update
>> allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI
>> registers are not valid.
>>
>> Certainly I'm open to any suggestions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Aubrey
>>
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-30 Thread Li, Aubrey
Ying,

can you please try this patch to see if the problem is gone on your side?

Thanks,
-Aubrey


On 2015/3/26 20:13, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote:
>> [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
>> (rtc0)
> 
> okay, I replicated this on my side now.
> 
> Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch
> exposes a few issues FWICT currently:
> 
> - Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in
> hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM
> block are not valid(register address = 0)
> 
> - I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource
> under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The
> question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we
> assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then
> requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine.
> 
> - Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request
> IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets
> irq8, so we saw "genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.
>  (rtc0)". So here is another question, when we dynamically
> allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if
> allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start
> from IRQ1.
> 
> What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq
> from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign
> IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every
> IRQ dynamically.
> 
> For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update
> allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI
> registers are not valid.
> 
> Certainly I'm open to any suggestions.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Aubrey
> 

>From 46524ace94eaf68c9719725472ab4ea28d079a7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aubrey Li 
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:50:09 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] x86/platform, acpi: Statically assign IRQ numbers in ACPI
 hardware reduced mode

We should be able to dynamically assign IRQ number on the platform in ACPI
Hardware-reduced mode, but on the Bay Trail-T(ASUS-T100) platform, there is
a RTC device still using the legacy hardcoded IRQ8, which could cause the
following error:

7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  (rtc0)

So we want to statically assign IRQ numbers in ACPI hardware reduced mode to
fix this error

Signed-off-by: Li Aubrey 
Cc: Alan Cox 
Cc: Len Brown 
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki 
Cc: Arjan van de Ven 
---
 arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 8 ++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
index 803b684..4cd0761 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
@@ -460,8 +460,12 @@ acpi_parse_ioapic(struct acpi_subtable_header * header, const unsigned long end)
 
 	acpi_table_print_madt_entry(header);
 
-	/* Statically assign IRQ numbers for IOAPICs hosting legacy IRQs */
-	if (ioapic->global_irq_base < nr_legacy_irqs())
+	/*
+	 * Statically assign IRQ numbers for IOAPICs hosting legacy IRQs,
+	 * Or for the platform in Hardware-reduced ACPI model
+	 */
+	if (ioapic->global_irq_base < nr_legacy_irqs() ||
+		acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware)
 		cfg.type = IOAPIC_DOMAIN_LEGACY;
 
 	mp_register_ioapic(ioapic->id, ioapic->address, ioapic->global_irq_base,
-- 
1.9.1



Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-30 Thread Li, Aubrey
Ying,

can you please try this patch to see if the problem is gone on your side?

Thanks,
-Aubrey


On 2015/3/26 20:13, Li, Aubrey wrote:
 On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote:
 [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
 (rtc0)
 
 okay, I replicated this on my side now.
 
 Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch
 exposes a few issues FWICT currently:
 
 - Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in
 hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM
 block are not valid(register address = 0)
 
 - I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource
 under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The
 question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we
 assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then
 requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine.
 
 - Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request
 IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets
 irq8, so we saw genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.
  (rtc0). So here is another question, when we dynamically
 allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if
 allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start
 from IRQ1.
 
 What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq
 from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign
 IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every
 IRQ dynamically.
 
 For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update
 allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI
 registers are not valid.
 
 Certainly I'm open to any suggestions.
 
 Thanks,
 -Aubrey
 

From 46524ace94eaf68c9719725472ab4ea28d079a7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aubrey Li aubrey...@intel.com
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:50:09 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] x86/platform, acpi: Statically assign IRQ numbers in ACPI
 hardware reduced mode

We should be able to dynamically assign IRQ number on the platform in ACPI
Hardware-reduced mode, but on the Bay Trail-T(ASUS-T100) platform, there is
a RTC device still using the legacy hardcoded IRQ8, which could cause the
following error:

7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  (rtc0)

So we want to statically assign IRQ numbers in ACPI hardware reduced mode to
fix this error

Signed-off-by: Li Aubrey aubrey...@linux.intel.com
Cc: Alan Cox a...@linux.intel.com
Cc: Len Brown len.br...@intel.com
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com
Cc: Arjan van de Ven ar...@linux.intel.com
---
 arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 8 ++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
index 803b684..4cd0761 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
@@ -460,8 +460,12 @@ acpi_parse_ioapic(struct acpi_subtable_header * header, const unsigned long end)
 
 	acpi_table_print_madt_entry(header);
 
-	/* Statically assign IRQ numbers for IOAPICs hosting legacy IRQs */
-	if (ioapic-global_irq_base  nr_legacy_irqs())
+	/*
+	 * Statically assign IRQ numbers for IOAPICs hosting legacy IRQs,
+	 * Or for the platform in Hardware-reduced ACPI model
+	 */
+	if (ioapic-global_irq_base  nr_legacy_irqs() ||
+		acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware)
 		cfg.type = IOAPIC_DOMAIN_LEGACY;
 
 	mp_register_ioapic(ioapic-id, ioapic-address, ioapic-global_irq_base,
-- 
1.9.1



Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-30 Thread Jiang Liu
On 2015/3/30 16:28, Li, Aubrey wrote:
 Ying,
 
 can you please try this patch to see if the problem is gone on your side?
Hi Aubrey,
I would be better if we could change RTC driver instead.
Thanks!
Gerry
 
 Thanks,
 -Aubrey
 
 
 On 2015/3/26 20:13, Li, Aubrey wrote:
 On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote:
 [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
 (rtc0)

 okay, I replicated this on my side now.

 Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch
 exposes a few issues FWICT currently:

 - Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in
 hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM
 block are not valid(register address = 0)

 - I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource
 under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The
 question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we
 assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then
 requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine.

 - Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request
 IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets
 irq8, so we saw genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.
  (rtc0). So here is another question, when we dynamically
 allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if
 allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start
 from IRQ1.

 What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq
 from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign
 IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every
 IRQ dynamically.

 For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update
 allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI
 registers are not valid.

 Certainly I'm open to any suggestions.

 Thanks,
 -Aubrey

 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-30 Thread Li, Aubrey
On 2015/3/30 16:37, Jiang Liu wrote:
 On 2015/3/30 16:28, Li, Aubrey wrote:
 Ying,

 can you please try this patch to see if the problem is gone on your side?
 Hi Aubrey,
   I would be better if we could change RTC driver instead.

Hey Gerry,

IRQ8 for RTC is for history reason. If we dynamically assign IRQ to RTC,
it might be a mess for legacy machine. If we still use IRQ8 for RTC but
dynamically assign IRQ to other components, then there is a race IRQ8
being used before RTC driver is loaded.

So, statically assigning IRQ is the best choice in my mind, this also
matches the original IRQ assign policy.

Thanks,
-Aubrey

 Thanks!
 Gerry

 Thanks,
 -Aubrey


 On 2015/3/26 20:13, Li, Aubrey wrote:
 On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote:
 [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
 (rtc0)

 okay, I replicated this on my side now.

 Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch
 exposes a few issues FWICT currently:

 - Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in
 hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM
 block are not valid(register address = 0)

 - I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource
 under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The
 question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we
 assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then
 requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine.

 - Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request
 IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets
 irq8, so we saw genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.
  (rtc0). So here is another question, when we dynamically
 allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if
 allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start
 from IRQ1.

 What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq
 from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign
 IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every
 IRQ dynamically.

 For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update
 allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI
 registers are not valid.

 Certainly I'm open to any suggestions.

 Thanks,
 -Aubrey


 --
 To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
 the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
 More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 
 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-26 Thread Li, Aubrey
On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote:
> [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
> (rtc0)

okay, I replicated this on my side now.

Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch
exposes a few issues FWICT currently:

- Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in
hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM
block are not valid(register address = 0)

- I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource
under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The
question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we
assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then
requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine.

- Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request
IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets
irq8, so we saw "genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.
 (rtc0)". So here is another question, when we dynamically
allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if
allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start
from IRQ1.

What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq
from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign
IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every
IRQ dynamically.

For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update
allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI
registers are not valid.

Certainly I'm open to any suggestions.

Thanks,
-Aubrey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-26 Thread Li, Aubrey
On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote:
 [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
 (rtc0)

okay, I replicated this on my side now.

Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch
exposes a few issues FWICT currently:

- Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in
hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM
block are not valid(register address = 0)

- I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource
under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The
question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we
assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then
requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine.

- Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request
IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets
irq8, so we saw genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.
 (rtc0). So here is another question, when we dynamically
allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if
allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start
from IRQ1.

What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq
from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign
IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every
IRQ dynamically.

For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update
allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI
registers are not valid.

Certainly I'm open to any suggestions.

Thanks,
-Aubrey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-23 Thread Li, Aubrey
On 2015/3/24 8:53, Huang Ying wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 14:18 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2015/3/20 16:38, Huang Ying wrote:
>>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>>> commit 7486341a98f26857f383aec88ffa10950087c3a1 ("x86/platform, acpi: 
>>> Bypass legacy PIC and PIT in ACPI hardware reduced mode")
>>>
>>>
>>> +-+++
>>> | | 394838c960 | 7486341a98 |
>>> +-+++
>>> | boot_successes  | 10 | 10 |
>>> | early-boot-hang | 1  | 1  |
>>> +-+++
>>>
>>>
>>> [   28.682462] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x30673, pf=0x2, revision=0x31e
>>> [   28.692739] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 
>>> , Peter Oruba
>>> [   28.739947] mmc0: Reset 0x1 never completed.
>>> [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
>>> (rtc0)
>>
>> mmc driver requests IRQ 8?
>> From surface it looks like either a firmware issue or ACPI get the wrong
>> IRQ resource.
>> I failed to replicate this issue with the attached config file on my
>> side, which platform is the test running?
> 
> Sorry for late.  The test was running on an ASUS T100TA.

I'm running on ASUS T100TA as well, is this replicable every time on
your side? can you please send out the acpi table on your machine?

Thanks,
-Aubrey

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Aubrey
>>> [   28.753151] CPU: 1 PID: 138 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 
>>> 4.0.0-rc4-wl-03426-gdba586f #1
>>> [   28.753156]  880076683480 8800764ffa78 818b2eb3 
>>> 0007
>>> [   28.753159]  88006d006800 8800764ffad8 810d37af 
>>> 8800764ffad8
>>> [   28.753162]  0246 810d394a 880053bdc400 
>>> 
>>> [   28.753163] Call Trace:
>>> [   28.753174]  [] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65
>>> [   28.753180]  [] __setup_irq+0x57f/0x5d0
>>> [   28.753183]  [] ? request_threaded_irq+0xaa/0x1b0
>>> [   28.753191]  [] ? sdhci_request+0x200/0x200 [sdhci]
>>> [   28.753194]  [] request_threaded_irq+0xf4/0x1b0
>>> [   28.753199]  [] sdhci_add_host+0x800/0xf90 [sdhci]
>>> [   28.753205]  [] sdhci_acpi_probe+0x348/0x440 
>>> [sdhci_acpi]
>>> [   28.753210]  [] platform_drv_probe+0x34/0xa0
>>> [   28.753215]  [] driver_probe_device+0x90/0x3e0
>>> [   28.753218]  [] __driver_attach+0x9b/0xa0
>>> [   28.753221]  [] ? __device_attach+0x40/0x40
>>> [   28.753231]  [] bus_for_each_dev+0x6b/0xb0
>>> [   28.753234]  [] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20
>>> [   28.753237]  [] bus_add_driver+0x180/0x250
>>> [   28.753240]  [] ? 0xa002e000
>>> [   28.753243]  [] driver_register+0x64/0xf0
>>> [   28.753246]  [] __platform_driver_register+0x4a/0x50
>>> [   28.753250]  [] sdhci_acpi_driver_init+0x17/0x1000 
>>> [sdhci_acpi]
>>> [   28.753254]  [] do_one_initcall+0xc0/0x1f0
>>> [   28.753259]  [] ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x1cc/0x240
>>> [   28.753262]  [] ? do_init_module+0x28/0x1dd
>>> [   28.753266]  [] do_init_module+0x61/0x1dd
>>> [   28.753270]  [] load_module+0x189f/0x1be0
>>> [   28.753274]  [] ? store_uevent+0x40/0x40
>>> [   28.753279]  [] SyS_finit_module+0x86/0xb0
>>> [   28.753283]  [] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x17
>>> [   28.753700] mmc0: Failed to request IRQ 8: -16
>>> [   28.975382] IOAPIC[0]: Set routing entry (8-16 -> 0x32 -> IRQ 13 Mode:1 
>>> Active:1 Dest:15)
>>> [   28.975934] sdhci-acpi: probe of INT33BB:00 failed with error -16
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ying Huang
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> LKP mailing list
>>> l...@linux.intel.com
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-23 Thread Huang Ying
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 14:18 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2015/3/20 16:38, Huang Ying wrote:
> > FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> > 
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > commit 7486341a98f26857f383aec88ffa10950087c3a1 ("x86/platform, acpi: 
> > Bypass legacy PIC and PIT in ACPI hardware reduced mode")
> > 
> > 
> > +-+++
> > | | 394838c960 | 7486341a98 |
> > +-+++
> > | boot_successes  | 10 | 10 |
> > | early-boot-hang | 1  | 1  |
> > +-+++
> > 
> > 
> > [   28.682462] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x30673, pf=0x2, revision=0x31e
> > [   28.692739] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 
> > , Peter Oruba
> > [   28.739947] mmc0: Reset 0x1 never completed.
> > [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
> > (rtc0)
> 
> mmc driver requests IRQ 8?
> From surface it looks like either a firmware issue or ACPI get the wrong
> IRQ resource.
> I failed to replicate this issue with the attached config file on my
> side, which platform is the test running?

Sorry for late.  The test was running on an ASUS T100TA.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> Thanks,
> -Aubrey
> > [   28.753151] CPU: 1 PID: 138 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 
> > 4.0.0-rc4-wl-03426-gdba586f #1
> > [   28.753156]  880076683480 8800764ffa78 818b2eb3 
> > 0007
> > [   28.753159]  88006d006800 8800764ffad8 810d37af 
> > 8800764ffad8
> > [   28.753162]  0246 810d394a 880053bdc400 
> > 
> > [   28.753163] Call Trace:
> > [   28.753174]  [] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65
> > [   28.753180]  [] __setup_irq+0x57f/0x5d0
> > [   28.753183]  [] ? request_threaded_irq+0xaa/0x1b0
> > [   28.753191]  [] ? sdhci_request+0x200/0x200 [sdhci]
> > [   28.753194]  [] request_threaded_irq+0xf4/0x1b0
> > [   28.753199]  [] sdhci_add_host+0x800/0xf90 [sdhci]
> > [   28.753205]  [] sdhci_acpi_probe+0x348/0x440 
> > [sdhci_acpi]
> > [   28.753210]  [] platform_drv_probe+0x34/0xa0
> > [   28.753215]  [] driver_probe_device+0x90/0x3e0
> > [   28.753218]  [] __driver_attach+0x9b/0xa0
> > [   28.753221]  [] ? __device_attach+0x40/0x40
> > [   28.753231]  [] bus_for_each_dev+0x6b/0xb0
> > [   28.753234]  [] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20
> > [   28.753237]  [] bus_add_driver+0x180/0x250
> > [   28.753240]  [] ? 0xa002e000
> > [   28.753243]  [] driver_register+0x64/0xf0
> > [   28.753246]  [] __platform_driver_register+0x4a/0x50
> > [   28.753250]  [] sdhci_acpi_driver_init+0x17/0x1000 
> > [sdhci_acpi]
> > [   28.753254]  [] do_one_initcall+0xc0/0x1f0
> > [   28.753259]  [] ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x1cc/0x240
> > [   28.753262]  [] ? do_init_module+0x28/0x1dd
> > [   28.753266]  [] do_init_module+0x61/0x1dd
> > [   28.753270]  [] load_module+0x189f/0x1be0
> > [   28.753274]  [] ? store_uevent+0x40/0x40
> > [   28.753279]  [] SyS_finit_module+0x86/0xb0
> > [   28.753283]  [] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x17
> > [   28.753700] mmc0: Failed to request IRQ 8: -16
> > [   28.975382] IOAPIC[0]: Set routing entry (8-16 -> 0x32 -> IRQ 13 Mode:1 
> > Active:1 Dest:15)
> > [   28.975934] sdhci-acpi: probe of INT33BB:00 failed with error -16
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Ying Huang
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > LKP mailing list
> > l...@linux.intel.com
> > 
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-23 Thread Li, Aubrey
On 2015/3/20 16:38, Huang Ying wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> commit 7486341a98f26857f383aec88ffa10950087c3a1 ("x86/platform, acpi: Bypass 
> legacy PIC and PIT in ACPI hardware reduced mode")
> 
> 
> +-+++
> | | 394838c960 | 7486341a98 |
> +-+++
> | boot_successes  | 10 | 10 |
> | early-boot-hang | 1  | 1  |
> +-+++
> 
> 
> [   28.682462] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x30673, pf=0x2, revision=0x31e
> [   28.692739] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 
> , Peter Oruba
> [   28.739947] mmc0: Reset 0x1 never completed.
> [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
> (rtc0)

mmc driver requests IRQ 8?
>From surface it looks like either a firmware issue or ACPI get the wrong
IRQ resource.
I failed to replicate this issue with the attached config file on my
side, which platform is the test running?

Thanks,
-Aubrey
> [   28.753151] CPU: 1 PID: 138 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 
> 4.0.0-rc4-wl-03426-gdba586f #1
> [   28.753156]  880076683480 8800764ffa78 818b2eb3 
> 0007
> [   28.753159]  88006d006800 8800764ffad8 810d37af 
> 8800764ffad8
> [   28.753162]  0246 810d394a 880053bdc400 
> 
> [   28.753163] Call Trace:
> [   28.753174]  [] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65
> [   28.753180]  [] __setup_irq+0x57f/0x5d0
> [   28.753183]  [] ? request_threaded_irq+0xaa/0x1b0
> [   28.753191]  [] ? sdhci_request+0x200/0x200 [sdhci]
> [   28.753194]  [] request_threaded_irq+0xf4/0x1b0
> [   28.753199]  [] sdhci_add_host+0x800/0xf90 [sdhci]
> [   28.753205]  [] sdhci_acpi_probe+0x348/0x440 [sdhci_acpi]
> [   28.753210]  [] platform_drv_probe+0x34/0xa0
> [   28.753215]  [] driver_probe_device+0x90/0x3e0
> [   28.753218]  [] __driver_attach+0x9b/0xa0
> [   28.753221]  [] ? __device_attach+0x40/0x40
> [   28.753231]  [] bus_for_each_dev+0x6b/0xb0
> [   28.753234]  [] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20
> [   28.753237]  [] bus_add_driver+0x180/0x250
> [   28.753240]  [] ? 0xa002e000
> [   28.753243]  [] driver_register+0x64/0xf0
> [   28.753246]  [] __platform_driver_register+0x4a/0x50
> [   28.753250]  [] sdhci_acpi_driver_init+0x17/0x1000 
> [sdhci_acpi]
> [   28.753254]  [] do_one_initcall+0xc0/0x1f0
> [   28.753259]  [] ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x1cc/0x240
> [   28.753262]  [] ? do_init_module+0x28/0x1dd
> [   28.753266]  [] do_init_module+0x61/0x1dd
> [   28.753270]  [] load_module+0x189f/0x1be0
> [   28.753274]  [] ? store_uevent+0x40/0x40
> [   28.753279]  [] SyS_finit_module+0x86/0xb0
> [   28.753283]  [] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x17
> [   28.753700] mmc0: Failed to request IRQ 8: -16
> [   28.975382] IOAPIC[0]: Set routing entry (8-16 -> 0x32 -> IRQ 13 Mode:1 
> Active:1 Dest:15)
> [   28.975934] sdhci-acpi: probe of INT33BB:00 failed with error -16
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ying Huang
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> LKP mailing list
> l...@linux.intel.com
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-23 Thread Li, Aubrey
On 2015/3/20 16:38, Huang Ying wrote:
 FYI, we noticed the below changes on
 
 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
 commit 7486341a98f26857f383aec88ffa10950087c3a1 (x86/platform, acpi: Bypass 
 legacy PIC and PIT in ACPI hardware reduced mode)
 
 
 +-+++
 | | 394838c960 | 7486341a98 |
 +-+++
 | boot_successes  | 10 | 10 |
 | early-boot-hang | 1  | 1  |
 +-+++
 
 
 [   28.682462] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x30673, pf=0x2, revision=0x31e
 [   28.692739] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 
 tig...@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk, Peter Oruba
 [   28.739947] mmc0: Reset 0x1 never completed.
 [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
 (rtc0)

mmc driver requests IRQ 8?
From surface it looks like either a firmware issue or ACPI get the wrong
IRQ resource.
I failed to replicate this issue with the attached config file on my
side, which platform is the test running?

Thanks,
-Aubrey
 [   28.753151] CPU: 1 PID: 138 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 
 4.0.0-rc4-wl-03426-gdba586f #1
 [   28.753156]  880076683480 8800764ffa78 818b2eb3 
 0007
 [   28.753159]  88006d006800 8800764ffad8 810d37af 
 8800764ffad8
 [   28.753162]  0246 810d394a 880053bdc400 
 
 [   28.753163] Call Trace:
 [   28.753174]  [818b2eb3] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65
 [   28.753180]  [810d37af] __setup_irq+0x57f/0x5d0
 [   28.753183]  [810d394a] ? request_threaded_irq+0xaa/0x1b0
 [   28.753191]  [a006ddc0] ? sdhci_request+0x200/0x200 [sdhci]
 [   28.753194]  [810d3994] request_threaded_irq+0xf4/0x1b0
 [   28.753199]  [a006b790] sdhci_add_host+0x800/0xf90 [sdhci]
 [   28.753205]  [a00295a8] sdhci_acpi_probe+0x348/0x440 [sdhci_acpi]
 [   28.753210]  [81558ab4] platform_drv_probe+0x34/0xa0
 [   28.753215]  [815567f0] driver_probe_device+0x90/0x3e0
 [   28.753218]  [81556c1b] __driver_attach+0x9b/0xa0
 [   28.753221]  [81556b80] ? __device_attach+0x40/0x40
 [   28.753231]  [815545cb] bus_for_each_dev+0x6b/0xb0
 [   28.753234]  [8155626e] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20
 [   28.753237]  [81555e30] bus_add_driver+0x180/0x250
 [   28.753240]  [a002e000] ? 0xa002e000
 [   28.753243]  [81557424] driver_register+0x64/0xf0
 [   28.753246]  [815589fa] __platform_driver_register+0x4a/0x50
 [   28.753250]  [a002e017] sdhci_acpi_driver_init+0x17/0x1000 
 [sdhci_acpi]
 [   28.753254]  [81002130] do_one_initcall+0xc0/0x1f0
 [   28.753259]  [811cb86c] ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x1cc/0x240
 [   28.753262]  [818afb3c] ? do_init_module+0x28/0x1dd
 [   28.753266]  [818afb75] do_init_module+0x61/0x1dd
 [   28.753270]  [810fe9af] load_module+0x189f/0x1be0
 [   28.753274]  [810f9e50] ? store_uevent+0x40/0x40
 [   28.753279]  [810fee96] SyS_finit_module+0x86/0xb0
 [   28.753283]  [818bb109] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x17
 [   28.753700] mmc0: Failed to request IRQ 8: -16
 [   28.975382] IOAPIC[0]: Set routing entry (8-16 - 0x32 - IRQ 13 Mode:1 
 Active:1 Dest:15)
 [   28.975934] sdhci-acpi: probe of INT33BB:00 failed with error -16
 
 
 Thanks,
 Ying Huang
 
 
 
 ___
 LKP mailing list
 l...@linux.intel.com
 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-23 Thread Huang Ying
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 14:18 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
 On 2015/3/20 16:38, Huang Ying wrote:
  FYI, we noticed the below changes on
  
  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
  commit 7486341a98f26857f383aec88ffa10950087c3a1 (x86/platform, acpi: 
  Bypass legacy PIC and PIT in ACPI hardware reduced mode)
  
  
  +-+++
  | | 394838c960 | 7486341a98 |
  +-+++
  | boot_successes  | 10 | 10 |
  | early-boot-hang | 1  | 1  |
  +-+++
  
  
  [   28.682462] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x30673, pf=0x2, revision=0x31e
  [   28.692739] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 
  tig...@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk, Peter Oruba
  [   28.739947] mmc0: Reset 0x1 never completed.
  [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
  (rtc0)
 
 mmc driver requests IRQ 8?
 From surface it looks like either a firmware issue or ACPI get the wrong
 IRQ resource.
 I failed to replicate this issue with the attached config file on my
 side, which platform is the test running?

Sorry for late.  The test was running on an ASUS T100TA.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

 Thanks,
 -Aubrey
  [   28.753151] CPU: 1 PID: 138 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 
  4.0.0-rc4-wl-03426-gdba586f #1
  [   28.753156]  880076683480 8800764ffa78 818b2eb3 
  0007
  [   28.753159]  88006d006800 8800764ffad8 810d37af 
  8800764ffad8
  [   28.753162]  0246 810d394a 880053bdc400 
  
  [   28.753163] Call Trace:
  [   28.753174]  [818b2eb3] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65
  [   28.753180]  [810d37af] __setup_irq+0x57f/0x5d0
  [   28.753183]  [810d394a] ? request_threaded_irq+0xaa/0x1b0
  [   28.753191]  [a006ddc0] ? sdhci_request+0x200/0x200 [sdhci]
  [   28.753194]  [810d3994] request_threaded_irq+0xf4/0x1b0
  [   28.753199]  [a006b790] sdhci_add_host+0x800/0xf90 [sdhci]
  [   28.753205]  [a00295a8] sdhci_acpi_probe+0x348/0x440 
  [sdhci_acpi]
  [   28.753210]  [81558ab4] platform_drv_probe+0x34/0xa0
  [   28.753215]  [815567f0] driver_probe_device+0x90/0x3e0
  [   28.753218]  [81556c1b] __driver_attach+0x9b/0xa0
  [   28.753221]  [81556b80] ? __device_attach+0x40/0x40
  [   28.753231]  [815545cb] bus_for_each_dev+0x6b/0xb0
  [   28.753234]  [8155626e] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20
  [   28.753237]  [81555e30] bus_add_driver+0x180/0x250
  [   28.753240]  [a002e000] ? 0xa002e000
  [   28.753243]  [81557424] driver_register+0x64/0xf0
  [   28.753246]  [815589fa] __platform_driver_register+0x4a/0x50
  [   28.753250]  [a002e017] sdhci_acpi_driver_init+0x17/0x1000 
  [sdhci_acpi]
  [   28.753254]  [81002130] do_one_initcall+0xc0/0x1f0
  [   28.753259]  [811cb86c] ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x1cc/0x240
  [   28.753262]  [818afb3c] ? do_init_module+0x28/0x1dd
  [   28.753266]  [818afb75] do_init_module+0x61/0x1dd
  [   28.753270]  [810fe9af] load_module+0x189f/0x1be0
  [   28.753274]  [810f9e50] ? store_uevent+0x40/0x40
  [   28.753279]  [810fee96] SyS_finit_module+0x86/0xb0
  [   28.753283]  [818bb109] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x17
  [   28.753700] mmc0: Failed to request IRQ 8: -16
  [   28.975382] IOAPIC[0]: Set routing entry (8-16 - 0x32 - IRQ 13 Mode:1 
  Active:1 Dest:15)
  [   28.975934] sdhci-acpi: probe of INT33BB:00 failed with error -16
  
  
  Thanks,
  Ying Huang
  
  
  
  ___
  LKP mailing list
  l...@linux.intel.com
  
 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

2015-03-23 Thread Li, Aubrey
On 2015/3/24 8:53, Huang Ying wrote:
 On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 14:18 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
 On 2015/3/20 16:38, Huang Ying wrote:
 FYI, we noticed the below changes on

 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
 commit 7486341a98f26857f383aec88ffa10950087c3a1 (x86/platform, acpi: 
 Bypass legacy PIC and PIT in ACPI hardware reduced mode)


 +-+++
 | | 394838c960 | 7486341a98 |
 +-+++
 | boot_successes  | 10 | 10 |
 | early-boot-hang | 1  | 1  |
 +-+++


 [   28.682462] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x30673, pf=0x2, revision=0x31e
 [   28.692739] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 
 tig...@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk, Peter Oruba
 [   28.739947] mmc0: Reset 0x1 never completed.
 [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 0080 (mmc0) vs.  
 (rtc0)

 mmc driver requests IRQ 8?
 From surface it looks like either a firmware issue or ACPI get the wrong
 IRQ resource.
 I failed to replicate this issue with the attached config file on my
 side, which platform is the test running?
 
 Sorry for late.  The test was running on an ASUS T100TA.

I'm running on ASUS T100TA as well, is this replicable every time on
your side? can you please send out the acpi table on your machine?

Thanks,
-Aubrey

 
 Best Regards,
 Huang, Ying
 
 Thanks,
 -Aubrey
 [   28.753151] CPU: 1 PID: 138 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 
 4.0.0-rc4-wl-03426-gdba586f #1
 [   28.753156]  880076683480 8800764ffa78 818b2eb3 
 0007
 [   28.753159]  88006d006800 8800764ffad8 810d37af 
 8800764ffad8
 [   28.753162]  0246 810d394a 880053bdc400 
 
 [   28.753163] Call Trace:
 [   28.753174]  [818b2eb3] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65
 [   28.753180]  [810d37af] __setup_irq+0x57f/0x5d0
 [   28.753183]  [810d394a] ? request_threaded_irq+0xaa/0x1b0
 [   28.753191]  [a006ddc0] ? sdhci_request+0x200/0x200 [sdhci]
 [   28.753194]  [810d3994] request_threaded_irq+0xf4/0x1b0
 [   28.753199]  [a006b790] sdhci_add_host+0x800/0xf90 [sdhci]
 [   28.753205]  [a00295a8] sdhci_acpi_probe+0x348/0x440 
 [sdhci_acpi]
 [   28.753210]  [81558ab4] platform_drv_probe+0x34/0xa0
 [   28.753215]  [815567f0] driver_probe_device+0x90/0x3e0
 [   28.753218]  [81556c1b] __driver_attach+0x9b/0xa0
 [   28.753221]  [81556b80] ? __device_attach+0x40/0x40
 [   28.753231]  [815545cb] bus_for_each_dev+0x6b/0xb0
 [   28.753234]  [8155626e] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20
 [   28.753237]  [81555e30] bus_add_driver+0x180/0x250
 [   28.753240]  [a002e000] ? 0xa002e000
 [   28.753243]  [81557424] driver_register+0x64/0xf0
 [   28.753246]  [815589fa] __platform_driver_register+0x4a/0x50
 [   28.753250]  [a002e017] sdhci_acpi_driver_init+0x17/0x1000 
 [sdhci_acpi]
 [   28.753254]  [81002130] do_one_initcall+0xc0/0x1f0
 [   28.753259]  [811cb86c] ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x1cc/0x240
 [   28.753262]  [818afb3c] ? do_init_module+0x28/0x1dd
 [   28.753266]  [818afb75] do_init_module+0x61/0x1dd
 [   28.753270]  [810fe9af] load_module+0x189f/0x1be0
 [   28.753274]  [810f9e50] ? store_uevent+0x40/0x40
 [   28.753279]  [810fee96] SyS_finit_module+0x86/0xb0
 [   28.753283]  [818bb109] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x17
 [   28.753700] mmc0: Failed to request IRQ 8: -16
 [   28.975382] IOAPIC[0]: Set routing entry (8-16 - 0x32 - IRQ 13 Mode:1 
 Active:1 Dest:15)
 [   28.975934] sdhci-acpi: probe of INT33BB:00 failed with error -16


 Thanks,
 Ying Huang



 ___
 LKP mailing list
 l...@linux.intel.com


 
 
 
 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/