On Saturday 01 October 2016 19:49:17 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/30/2016 5:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> >> What's the drawback, if any?
> >> >
> >> > I don't see any drawback to be honest.
> >
> > I'd go for it then, if Bjorn doesn't hate it.
>
> I posted a follow up patch a minute ago.
>
> [
Hi Ondrej,
On 10/3/2016 3:25 AM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 10/2/2016 12:53 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
Can we have some testing coverage? and eventually have tested-by?
>>>
>>> Works on two affected machines. More tests tomorrow.
>>
>> Thanks, apprecia
On Monday 03 October 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 10/2/2016 12:53 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> >> Can we have some testing coverage? and eventually have tested-by?
> >
> > Works on two affected machines. More tests tomorrow.
>
> Thanks, appreciate the feedback. Looking forward to hear your other test
>
On 10/2/2016 12:53 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>> Can we have some testing coverage? and eventually have tested-by?
> Works on two affected machines. More tests tomorrow.
Thanks, appreciate the feedback. Looking forward to hear your other test
results.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies,
On Saturday 01 October 2016 19:49:17 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/30/2016 5:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> >> What's the drawback, if any?
> >> >
> >> > I don't see any drawback to be honest.
> >
> > I'd go for it then, if Bjorn doesn't hate it.
>
> I posted a follow up patch a minute ago.
>
> [
On 9/30/2016 5:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> >> What's the drawback, if any?
>> >
>> > I don't see any drawback to be honest.
> I'd go for it then, if Bjorn doesn't hate it.
>
I posted a follow up patch a minute ago.
[PATCH 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"
[P
On 9/30/2016 5:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 9/30/2016 5:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> I hope it makes sense now. I tend to skip details sometimes. Feel free to
> send more questions.
>>> Thanks for the information!
>>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/30/2016 5:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I hope it makes sense now. I tend to skip details sometimes. Feel free to
>>> > send more questions.
>> Thanks for the information!
>>
>> IIUC, basically, what you are proposing would b
On 9/30/2016 5:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >
>> > I hope it makes sense now. I tend to skip details sometimes. Feel free to
>> > send more questions.
> Thanks for the information!
>
> IIUC, basically, what you are proposing would be to restore the old
> penalizing method for IRQs in the 0-2
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/30/2016 3:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> how do we feel about increasing the ISA IRQ range to 256 so that
>>> > we are safe for all SCI interrupts?
>> I'm not sure how this is related to the problem at hand. Care to elaborate?
>>
>
>
On 9/30/2016 3:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> how do we feel about increasing the ISA IRQ range to 256 so that
>> > we are safe for all SCI interrupts?
> I'm not sure how this is related to the problem at hand. Care to elaborate?
>
Sure, let me explain.
The code maintains a static array pe
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Rafael, Bjorn;
>
> On 9/30/2016 11:56 AM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
It seems to work, at least on one machine.
>>> >
>>> > Ok, that comfirms my suspicion. We are having trouble detecting sci
>>> > interrupt type and we end up penalizing the wron
Rafael, Bjorn;
On 9/30/2016 11:56 AM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>>> It seems to work, at least on one machine.
>> >
>> > Ok, that comfirms my suspicion. We are having trouble detecting sci
>> > interrupt type and we end up penalizing the wrong value.
>> >
>> > Can you try your other machines too?
> Wor
On Friday 30 September 2016 15:14:42 ok...@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2016-09-30 02:44, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > On Friday 30 September 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> On 9/29/2016 2:00 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> >> >> The previous two patches were in the right direction.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Can we also get
On 2016-09-30 02:44, Ondrej Zary wrote:
On Friday 30 September 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:
On 9/29/2016 2:00 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>> 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 s
On Friday 30 September 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/29/2016 2:00 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> >> 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.
>
On 9/29/2016 2:00 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>> 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.
>> >
>> >
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 aft
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 at
On Thursday 29 September 2016 16:28:23 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/29/2016 9:49 AM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> >> Ok, since I have not seen the full boot log I am guessing that isa api
> >>
> >> > gets called before the link objects are initialized.
> >
> > Netconsole did not work (probably because it crash
On 9/29/2016 10:28 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> + if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
BTW, can you change this line to
if (link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
after applying.
> + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> + PIRQ_PENALTY
On 9/29/2016 10:18 AM, Wim Osterholt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 07:38:41PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>>
>> Can you try these patches on your machines please?
>
> I applied the included patches on vanilla 4.8-rc8 and my machine booted
> fine. (I saw a remark about SCSI interrupts, but I have n
On 9/29/2016 9:49 AM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>> Ok, since I have not seen the full boot log I am guessing that isa api
>> > gets called before the link objects are initialized.
> Netconsole did not work (probably because it crashes too early?) and I don't
> have a null-modem cable.
>
Probably, this
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 07:38:41PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>
> Can you try these patches on your machines please?
I applied the included patches on vanilla 4.8-rc8 and my machine booted
fine. (I saw a remark about SCSI interrupts, but I have no SCSI.)
Regards, Wim.
On Thursday 29 September 2016, ok...@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2016-09-29 05:10, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 September 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> On 9/28/2016 3:23 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday 28 September 2016 20:22:40 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> >> On 9/28/2016 1:02 PM, Ondr
On 2016-09-29 05:10, Ondrej Zary wrote:
On Thursday 29 September 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:
On 9/28/2016 3:23 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2016 20:22:40 Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 9/28/2016 1:02 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
Thanks, It sounds like you have more than one machine wit
On Thursday 29 September 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/28/2016 3:23 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 September 2016 20:22:40 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> On 9/28/2016 1:02 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> Thanks, It sounds like you have more than one machine with similar
>
> > problems.
On 9/28/2016 3:23 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2016 20:22:40 Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 9/28/2016 1:02 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
Thanks, It sounds like you have more than one machine with similar
> problems. Can you collect the log from the other machines with
> 4.
On Wednesday 28 September 2016 20:22:40 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/28/2016 1:02 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> >> Thanks, It sounds like you have more than one machine with similar
> >>
> >> > problems. Can you collect the log from the other machines with
> >> > 4.8-rc8?
> >> >
> >> > and also a boot log w
On 9/28/2016 1:02 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>> Thanks, It sounds like you have more than one machine with similar
>> > problems. Can you collect the log from the other machines with 4.8-rc8?
>> >
>> > and also a boot log with 4.6 kernel where things are working?
> The attached logs are from another ma
On Wednesday 28 September 2016 16:11:39 Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/28/2016 4:32 AM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> >>> OK
> >>>
> >>> > > Sinan, can you help, please?
> >> >
> >> > Sure, let's see what's going on. I was writing an email.
> >> >
> >> > Can we apply this and collect the kernel log? It also helps
On 9/28/2016 4:32 AM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>>> OK
>>> > >
>>> > > Sinan, can you help, please?
>> >
>> > Sure, let's see what's going on. I was writing an email.
>> >
>> > Can we apply this and collect the kernel log? It also helps to see the
>> > kernel log from a working combination.
> This is from
On Wednesday 28 September 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 9/27/2016 6:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> :04 04 9bf16c388d23bb66e087809f069eafed18e46a8c
> >> : bcac95fb33ee834aec7d23eab9eb0dc5e330c68c M drivers
> >
> > OK
> >
> > Sinan, can you help, please?
>
> Sure, let's see what's g
On 9/27/2016 6:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> :04 04 9bf16c388d23bb66e087809f069eafed18e46a8c
>> bcac95fb33ee834aec7d23eab9eb0dc5e330c68c M drivers
> OK
>
> Sinan, can you help, please?
>
>
Sure, let's see what's going on. I was writing an email.
Can we apply this and collec
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 12:23:31 AM Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 September 2016 23:32:26 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:02:22 PM Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > > On Monday 26 September 2016 14:23:01 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, September 25, 201
On Tuesday 27 September 2016 23:32:26 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:02:22 PM Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > On Monday 26 September 2016 14:23:01 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 03:12:05 PM Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > I've upgraded ke
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:02:22 PM Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Monday 26 September 2016 14:23:01 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 03:12:05 PM Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > I've upgraded kernel (Debian Squeeze - backports) from 4.6
> > > (4.6.4-1~bpo8+1) to 4.7
On Monday 26 September 2016 14:23:01 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 03:12:05 PM Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I've upgraded kernel (Debian Squeeze - backports) from 4.6
> > (4.6.4-1~bpo8+1) to 4.7 (4.7.2-1~bpo8+1) and IRQs stopped working with
> > error messages like t
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 03:12:05 PM Ondrej Zary wrote:
> Hello,
> I've upgraded kernel (Debian Squeeze - backports) from 4.6 (4.6.4-1~bpo8+1)
> to 4.7 (4.7.2-1~bpo8+1) and IRQs stopped working with error messages like
> this:
>
> ACPI: No IRQ available for PCI Interrupt Link [LNKD]. Try pci
Hello,
I've upgraded kernel (Debian Squeeze - backports) from 4.6 (4.6.4-1~bpo8+1)
to 4.7 (4.7.2-1~bpo8+1) and IRQs stopped working with error messages like this:
ACPI: No IRQ available for PCI Interrupt Link [LNKD]. Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off
The same thing appeared on two different machines. Is
40 matches
Mail list logo
