On 17.03.2023 00:19, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> So yes, it then all boils down to that Linux-
>> internal question.
>
> Excellent question but we'll have to wait for Ray as he is the one with
> access to the hardware. But I have this data I can share in the
> meantime:
>
> [ 1.260378] IRQ to pin mappings:
> [ 1.260387] IRQ1 -> 0:1
> [ 1.260395] IRQ2 -> 0:2
> [ 1.260403] IRQ3 -> 0:3
> [ 1.260410] IRQ4 -> 0:4
> [ 1.260418] IRQ5 -> 0:5
> [ 1.260425] IRQ6 -> 0:6
> [ 1.260432] IRQ7 -> 0:7
> [ 1.260440] IRQ8 -> 0:8
> [ 1.260447] IRQ9 -> 0:9
> [ 1.260455] IRQ10 -> 0:10
> [ 1.260462] IRQ11 -> 0:11
> [ 1.260470] IRQ12 -> 0:12
> [ 1.260478] IRQ13 -> 0:13
> [ 1.260485] IRQ14 -> 0:14
> [ 1.260493] IRQ15 -> 0:15
> [ 1.260505] IRQ106 -> 1:8
> [ 1.260513] IRQ112 -> 1:4
> [ 1.260521] IRQ116 -> 1:13
> [ 1.260529] IRQ117 -> 1:14
> [ 1.260537] IRQ118 -> 1:15
> [ 1.260544] .................................... done.
And what does Linux think are IRQs 16 ... 105? Have you compared with
Linux running baremetal on the same hardware?
Jan
> And I think Ray traced the point in Linux where Linux gives us an IRQ ==
> 112 (which is the one causing issues):
>
> __acpi_register_gsi->
> acpi_register_gsi_ioapic->
> mp_map_gsi_to_irq->
> mp_map_pin_to_irq->
> __irq_resolve_mapping()
>
> if (likely(data)) {
> desc = irq_data_to_desc(data);
> if (irq)
> *irq = data->irq;
> /* this IRQ is 112, IO-APIC-34 domain */
> }
