Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-119998-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 23:22:16 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mfd: intel-lpss: Switch over to MSI interrupts
Message-ID: <ZgM8iExkz5S6reeq@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <ZgL2G4ItkFlQ7cqS@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20240326210107.GA1496865@bhelgaas>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240326210107.GA1496865@bhelgaas>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 04:01:07PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:21:47PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 04:19:15PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 06:59:05PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

..

> > > > -	ret = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, 1, 1, PCI_IRQ_LEGACY);
> > > > +	ret = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, 1, 1, PCI_IRQ_ALL_TYPES);
> > > >  	if (ret < 0)
> > > >  		return ret;
> > > 
> > > I guess at least some of these devices do support INTx, since we
> > > always used INTx previously, right?
> > > 
> > > There are a bunch of bug reports complaining about a lack of _PRT
> > > entries for them, e.g., these from
> > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212261#c24:
> > 
> > But this is not related to my patch, and the mentioned bug report seems about
> > all AMD and Intel platforms.
> > 
> > Can you, please, elaborate what the relation to my patch?
> 
> Right, sorry I didn't make that clear; I didn't mean that it was
> related to your patch.  I was just looking at this old bug report
> about not being able to figure out INTx routing.
> 
> Your patch had to do with interrupts, so I just wondered whether you
> had insight into whether these devices actually used INTx.  My guess
> is that at least some of them *do* use INTx, because prior to your
> patch, the driver *only* tried to use INTx.
> 
> If it happend that they never use INTx, but advertise INTA via
> Interrupt Pin, I think that would be a device defect that we might
> consider a quirk for.
> 
> If they *do* use INTx, and the _PRT doesn't tell us how it's routed, I
> think that would be a firmware defect, and ... I dunno what we would
> do.  I guess just avoid using INTx because we don't know where the
> interupt goes.

Okay, so the revert after all is not required, do you agree?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko