Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-111648-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN-StX1HqWqi+YW=t+V52-38Mfp5fAz7YHx4aH-CQjgyNiKx3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <36198864-579e-41f0-baf6-917f0a7f4bfa@intel.com> <5767438.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher>
 <5770245.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher> <CACRpkdby5dY7j9=r_dq+at_sqFduJWo15zt4tj4fvhY-KgCUYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdby5dY7j9=r_dq+at_sqFduJWo15zt4tj4fvhY-KgCUYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:49:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hgWGWneAgqCxZ2L85nrM_7J7H1g042sA5tzz234BNUGw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bug report: probe of AMDI0040:00 failed with error -16
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Francisco Ayala Le Brun <francisco@videowindow.eu>, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org, 
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, 
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 3:28=E2=80=AFPM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro=
org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 5:33=E2=80=AFPM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.=
net> wrote:
>
> > We actually can get away without defining a new IRQ flag, as in
> > the patch below.
> >
> > It is not super-clean, but should do the work.
> >
> > Linus, what do you think?
>
> Uhhh I rather not, the other approach will cover the invariably recurring
> instances of this, it will not be the last time we see something like thi=
s.

I'm not actually sure how likely this is.

The ACPI SCI is generally heavy-wieght, so it is not shared very often
(and I believe that there is a particular reason for sharing it with a
GPIO chip) and this very well may be an exception.

> We need tglx input on this, I could merge the patch below with some
> big TODO to fix it properly if the discussion about the proper solution
> takes too much time.
>
> But I rather not hack around with IRQs without tglx (or marcz, but he
> got overloaded) input.

Fair enough.

I guess I'll post the first patch with a proper changelog next week
and we'll see.

Thanks!