From patchwork Tue Apr 30 14:24:28 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jonathan Cameron X-Patchwork-Id: 794015 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0703E1791EF; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 14:31:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714487480; cv=none; b=cjlX5CLke6rfpaUafDkudFPjlR/yePVyFlShDWLblCZZOCXGfmnf3PbLOTAwup53lXRZ4r3yInk+E6kTk4BcUtLNvggpAc9Pq/27RNMtyPIMGU746EX+6b/R8GxEtxVyIUExR56Wp/XrmldpcO3L/xszewvK1rVQXMPtqR2IKU8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714487480; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VIpACEDzvmE577Ey5Gc8xPHxkmI1Az49bJ8xa/Fx5h0=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JMb5VX84aBC440jHCZmvKoSqAx5t6FSlWmO08agzeJELs7pJyoGbhMtTHSro69vNDvvoW7SUs04PKsbywl4/mr2ovDs9bUNoyX5yjfWrLY92F//Eq8G+bWtvKT5os/7q8J4nRIyerJeHwsFOjwNpeCSc+WEtV7Au0CJhmhAXEyA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VTMxz0wsqz6GD6V; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:28:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 619D2140A08; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:31:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from SecurePC-101-06.china.huawei.com (10.122.247.231) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:31:15 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , , , , , , , , , Russell King , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Miguel Luis , James Morse , Salil Mehta , Jean-Philippe Brucker , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Marc Zyngier , Hanjun Guo , Gavin Shan CC: Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , , , Subject: [PATCH v9 13/19] irqchip/gic-v3: Don't return errors from gic_acpi_match_gicc() Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:24:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20240430142434.10471-14-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 In-Reply-To: <20240430142434.10471-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> References: <20240430142434.10471-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100003.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.210) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) From: James Morse gic_acpi_match_gicc() is only called via gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions(). It should only count the number of enabled redistributors, but it also tries to sanity check the GICC entry, currently returning an error if the Enabled bit is set, but the gicr_base_address is zero. Adding support for the online-capable bit to the sanity check will complicate it, for no benefit. The existing check implicitly depends on gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions() previous failing to find any GICR regions (as it is valid to have gicr_base_address of zero if the redistributors are described via a GICR entry). Instead of complicating the check, remove it. Failures that happen at this point cause the irqchip not to register, meaning no irqs can be requested. The kernel grinds to a panic() pretty quickly. Without the check, MADT tables that exhibit this problem are still caught by gic_populate_rdist(), which helpfully also prints what went wrong: | CPU4: mpidr 100 has no re-distributor! Signed-off-by: James Morse Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan Tested-by: Miguel Luis Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron --- V9: No change --- drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 13 ++----------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c index 6fb276504bcc..10af15f93d4d 100644 --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c @@ -2415,19 +2415,10 @@ static int __init gic_acpi_match_gicc(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, * If GICC is enabled and has valid gicr base address, then it means * GICR base is presented via GICC */ - if (acpi_gicc_is_usable(gicc) && gicc->gicr_base_address) { + if (acpi_gicc_is_usable(gicc) && gicc->gicr_base_address) acpi_data.enabled_rdists++; - return 0; - } - /* - * It's perfectly valid firmware can pass disabled GICC entry, driver - * should not treat as errors, skip the entry instead of probe fail. - */ - if (!acpi_gicc_is_usable(gicc)) - return 0; - - return -ENODEV; + return 0; } static int __init gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions(void)