Hi.
In 3.19 the device name associates with IRQ's for ahci controllers operating
with a single IRQ changed from "ahci?" to "<BDF>", was this intentional ?
It's probably commit 18dcf433f3ded61eb140a55e7048ec2fef79e723 (or another one
in that series).
--
Sander
/proc/interrupts of an ahci controller with a single irq:
52: 13529 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi 0000:00:1f.2
/proc/interrupts of an ahci controller with multiple irq's:
114: 412535 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci0
115: 0 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci1
116: 16717 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci2
117: 0 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci3
118: 0 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci4
119: 0 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci5
On 09.02.2015 20:54, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Hi.
>
> In 3.19 the device name associates with IRQ's for ahci controllers operating
> with a single IRQ changed from "ahci?" to "<BDF>", was this intentional ?
>
> It's probably commit 18dcf433f3ded61eb140a55e7048ec2fef79e723 (or another one
> in that series).
Oh, looking at that commit that might make sense. In
ahci_host_activate_single_irq it now uses dev_driver_name instead of dev_name as
it did before (from ata_host_activate). The description sounds like before the
driver is registered this will return the bus. And registering an interrupt
would likely be before the driver is fully registered... But you probably saw
that, too. Whether that really was intentional is still the question. :)
-Stefan
>
> --
> Sander
>
>
> /proc/interrupts of an ahci controller with a single irq:
> 52: 13529 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi 0000:00:1f.2
>
> /proc/interrupts of an ahci controller with multiple irq's:
> 114: 412535 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci0
> 115: 0 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci1
> 116: 16717 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci2
> 117: 0 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci3
> 118: 0 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci4
> 119: 0 0 0 0 0 0 xen-pirq-msi ahci5
>
>
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:57:46AM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 09.02.2015 20:54, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > In 3.19 the device name associates with IRQ's for ahci controllers operating
> > with a single IRQ changed from "ahci?" to "<BDF>", was this intentional ?
> >
> > It's probably commit 18dcf433f3ded61eb140a55e7048ec2fef79e723 (or another one
> > in that series).
>
> Oh, looking at that commit that might make sense. In
> ahci_host_activate_single_irq it now uses dev_driver_name instead of dev_name as
> it did before (from ata_host_activate). The description sounds like before the
> driver is registered this will return the bus. And registering an interrupt
> would likely be before the driver is fully registered... But you probably saw
> that, too. Whether that really was intentional is still the question. :)
Urgh... Alexander, can you please send a patch to fix up the names?
Thanks.
--
tejun
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:51:20AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:57:46AM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
> > On 09.02.2015 20:54, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > In 3.19 the device name associates with IRQ's for ahci controllers operating
> > > with a single IRQ changed from "ahci?" to "<BDF>", was this intentional ?
> > >
> > > It's probably commit 18dcf433f3ded61eb140a55e7048ec2fef79e723 (or another one
> > > in that series).
> >
> > Oh, looking at that commit that might make sense. In
> > ahci_host_activate_single_irq it now uses dev_driver_name instead of dev_name as
> > it did before (from ata_host_activate). The description sounds like before the
> > driver is registered this will return the bus. And registering an interrupt
> > would likely be before the driver is fully registered... But you probably saw
> > that, too. Whether that really was intentional is still the question. :)
>
> Urgh... Alexander, can you please send a patch to fix up the names?
Will try to send over the weekend.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
--
Regards,
Alexander Gordeev
[email protected]
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:51:20AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:57:46AM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
> > On 09.02.2015 20:54, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > In 3.19 the device name associates with IRQ's for ahci controllers operating
> > > with a single IRQ changed from "ahci?" to "<BDF>", was this intentional ?
> > >
> > > It's probably commit 18dcf433f3ded61eb140a55e7048ec2fef79e723 (or another one
> > > in that series).
> >
> > Oh, looking at that commit that might make sense. In
> > ahci_host_activate_single_irq it now uses dev_driver_name instead of dev_name as
> > it did before (from ata_host_activate). The description sounds like before the
> > driver is registered this will return the bus. And registering an interrupt
> > would likely be before the driver is fully registered... But you probably saw
> > that, too. Whether that really was intentional is still the question. :)
>
> Urgh... Alexander, can you please send a patch to fix up the names?
The problem dates back to commit 4f37b50 ("libata: Use dev_name() for
request_irq() to distinguish devices"). If the commit is considered valid
then <BDF> still might be legitimate as well. Not sure what is the best
approach here.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
--
Regards,
Alexander Gordeev
[email protected]