Le mar. 19 déc. 2023 à 20:03, Sébastien Chaumat <euidz...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Le mar. 19 déc. 2023 à 16:15, Sébastien Chaumat <euidz...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > > I did add an extra printk in PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi > > so the "first one" is my printk (available in xl dmesg) > > the second message is from xen_register_gsi (from linux kernel) > > > > Le mar. 19 déc. 2023 à 14:15, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> a écrit : > > > > > > On 18.12.2023 17:21, Sébastien Chaumat wrote: > > > >>>>> On 05.12.2023 21:31, Sébastien Chaumat wrote: > > > >>>>>>> [ 2.464598] amd_gpio AMDI0030:00: failed to enable wake-up > interrupt > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Is it expected that IRQ7 goes from fasteoi (kernel 6.6.4 ) to > > > >>>>>> ioapic-edge and IRQ9 to ioapic-level ? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> IR-IO-APIC 7-fasteoi pinctrl_amd > > > >>>>>> IR-IO-APIC 9-fasteoi acpi > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> to (xen 4.18.0) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> xen-pirq -ioapic-edge pinctrl_amd > > > >>>>>> xen-pirq -ioapic-level acpi > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> ? > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> This look similar to > > > >>> https://yhbt.net/lore/all/20201006044941.fdjsp346kc5thyzy@Rk/t/ > > > >>> > > > >>> This issue seems that IRQ 7 (the GPIO controller) is natively > fasteoi > > > >>> (so level type) while in xen it is mapped to oapic-edge instead > of > > > >>> oapic-level > > > >>> as the SSDT indicates : > > > >>> > > > >>> Device (GPIO) > > > >>> > > > >>> { > > > >>> Name (_HID, "AMDI0030") // _HID: Hardware ID > > > >>> Name (_CID, "AMDI0030") // _CID: Compatible ID > > > >>> Name (_UID, Zero) // _UID: Unique ID > > > >>> Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized) // _CRS: Current > Resource Settings > > > >>> { > > > >>> Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate () > > > >>> { > > > >>> Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveLow, > Shared, ,, ) > > > >>> { > > > >>> 0x00000007, > > > >>> } > > > >>> Any idea why ? > > > >> > > > >> Information coming from AML is required to be handed down by Dom0 > to Xen. > > > >> May want checking that (a) Dom0 properly does so and (b) Xen > doesn't screw > > > >> up in consuming that data. See PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi. I wonder if > this is > > > >> specific to it being IRQ7 which GPIO uses, as at the (master) PIC > IRQ7 is > > > >> also the spurious vector. You may want to retry with the tip of the > 4.17 > > > >> branch (soon to become 4.17.3) - while it doesn't look very likely > to me > > > >> that recent backports there were related, it may still be that they > make > > > >> a difference. > > > >> > > > > > > > > testing with 4.17.3: > > > > > > > > Adding some printk in PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi, I see (in xl dmesg) that > > > > (XEN) PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi setup_gsi : gsi: 7 triggering: 1 polarity: > 1 > > > > > > > > but later on in dmesg I see : > > > > [ 1.747958] xen: registering gsi 7 triggering 0 polarity 1 > > > > > > Linux has exactly one place where this message is logged from, and > that's > > > ahead of it calling PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi. Since you said "later", can > you > > > confirm that actually you see two instances of the Xen message and two > > > instances of the Linux one (each of them with respectively matching > > > trigger and polarity values)? Or are we indeed observing what would > look > > > to be corruption of a hypercall argument? > > > > > > If there were two calls, it would be important to realize that Xen will > > > respect only the first one. > > > > > > Jan > > Adding a printk to catch the gsi immediately before the hypercall in > linux/arch/x86/pci/xen.c > > #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_PV_DOM0 > static int xen_register_gsi(u32 gsi, int triggering, int polarity) > { > int rc, irq; > struct physdev_setup_gsi setup_gsi; > > if (!xen_pv_domain()) > return -1; > > printk(KERN_DEBUG "xen: registering gsi %u triggering %d polarity %d\n", > gsi, triggering, polarity); > there we have : [ 1.848051] xen: registering gsi 7 triggering 0 polarity 1 then in the next call : irq = xen_register_pirq(gsi, triggering, true); I added a printk at the very beginning : static int xen_register_pirq(u32 gsi, int triggering, bool set_pirq) { int rc, pirq = -1, irq; struct physdev_map_pirq map_irq; int shareable = 0; char *name; printk(KERN_DEBUG "xen_register_pirq start gsi %u triggering %d set_pirq %d\n", gsi, triggering, set_pirq) And I get in this printk result for IRQ7 : triggering=1 while it was passed with value 0 in the call !? Any idea ?
