lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: BCM4312 Fails when xdm is started
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
>> On Sunday 23 November 2008 12:49:55 Yuval Hager wrote:
>>> [ 182.891400] ****** b43: B43_MMIO_MACCTL 0x840A0503
>>> [ 182.891409] ****** b43: SSB_TMSLOW 0x20150000
>>> [ 258.299027] irq 10: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
>> Does the kernel disable the PCI device, if it ignores the IRQ?
>
> The kernel disables the IRQ at least internally, maybe also by
> deconfiguring the interrupt register in any devices using it, which
> would explain the change in config register 0x3c (but not the changes
> in all the other bytes, could that be a freak chain reaction inside
> the hardware?) but I haven't heard/seen the kernel disable the PCI
> device itself. I don't know if it can.
>
> Why doesn't b43 care about this interrupt? Without APIC interrupt 10
> is what both device and driver should be using (according to earlier
> lspci -x output).

I think by this point the BCM43xx hardware is disabled.

>>> [ 258.299173] handlers:
>>> [ 258.299176] [<f7906455>] (b43_interrupt_handler+0x0/0x1b7 [b43])
>>> [ 258.299212] Disabling IRQ #10
>>> [ 258.315148] b43-phy0: Radio hardware status changed to DISABLED
>>> [ 258.315160] b43-phy0: ******** B43_B43_MMIO_RADIO_HWENABLED_HI 0xFFFFFFFF
>>> [ 258.342341] kobject: 'rfkill0' (f43b7d78): kobject_uevent_env
>>> [ 258.342367] kobject: 'rfkill0' (f43b7d78): fill_kobj_path: path = '/class/rfkill/rfkill0'
>>> [ 258.342418] kobject: 'ssb0:0' (f40dfcd8): fill_kobj_path: path = '/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:02.0/0000:02:00.0/ssb0:0'
>
> Why does the radio hw status changes here?
> How is the change notified to the driver?

By setting a bit in the appropriate register; however, device is disabled and
all bits are set. This is a false indication.

>>> [ 258.391951]
>>> [ 258.391956] =================================
>>> [ 258.391964] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
>>> [ 258.391971] 2.6.28-rc5 #15
>>> [ 258.391975] ---------------------------------
>>> [ 258.391980] inconsistent {in-hardirq-W} -> {hardirq-on-W} usage.
>>> [ 258.391987] X/3965 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes:
>>> [ 258.391993] (&irq_desc_lock_class){++..}, at: [<c0148c60>] try_one_irq+0x15/0xe8
>>> [ 258.392016] {in-hardirq-W} state was registered at:
>>> [ 258.392021] [<c013bc07>] __lock_acquire+0x490/0x6bc
>>> [ 258.392034] [<c013be8d>] lock_acquire+0x5a/0x74
>>> [ 258.392043] [<c01496f8>] handle_level_irq+0x12/0xba
>>> [ 258.392053] [<c03c4842>] _spin_lock+0x1c/0x45
>>> [ 258.392066] [<c01496f8>] handle_level_irq+0x12/0xba
>>> [ 258.392076] [<c01496f8>] handle_level_irq+0x12/0xba
>>> [ 258.392085] [<c010564e>] do_IRQ+0x89/0x9f
>>> [ 258.392096] [<c0103ea8>] common_interrupt+0x28/0x30
>>> [ 258.392105] [<c03c4cc2>] _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x37/0x39
>>> [ 258.392115] [<c01487e6>] __setup_irq+0x17a/0x1f3
>>> [ 258.392124] [<c05ce79d>] start_kernel+0x285/0x2f1
>>> [ 258.392140] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
>>> [ 258.392159] irq event stamp: 1844456
>>> [ 258.392164] hardirqs last enabled at (1844456): [<c03c4b6f>] _spin_unlock_irq+0x20/0x23
>>> [ 258.392175] hardirqs last disabled at (1844455): [<c03c4ac3>] _spin_lock_irq+0xa/0x4b
>>> [ 258.392186] softirqs last enabled at (1844310): [<c0125406>] do_softirq+0x37/0x4d
>>> [ 258.392198] softirqs last disabled at (1844447): [<c0125406>] do_softirq+0x37/0x4d
>>
>> That's a bit weird. Looks like another bug in the IRQ layer.
>
> Something happens with the hardware that confuses the kernel. It's
> triggered by software but I don't know where.. Like Michael, I'm
> not too convinced that it is in b43. :\

From a config file posted earlier, the OP is using SLAB. Is there any point in
trying SLUB?

Larry



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-23 22:13    [W:0.283 / U:0.972 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site