Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:05:40 -0400 | From | Neil Horman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: adjust irq remapping quirk for older revisions of 5500/5520 chipsets |
| |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 02:44:33PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > A while back I posted this commit: > > commit 03bbcb2e7e292838bb0244f5a7816d194c911d62 > Author: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> > Date: Tue Apr 16 16:38:32 2013 -0400 > > iommu/vt-d: add quirk for broken interrupt remapping on 55XX chipsets > > Which properly disables irq remapping on the 5500/5520 chipsets that don't > correctly perform that feature. However, when I wrote it, I followed the errata > sheet linked in that commit too closely, and explicitly tied the activation of > the quirk to revision 0x13 of the chip, under the assumption that earlier > revisions were not in the field. Recently a system was reported to be suffering > from this remap bug and the quirk hadn't triggered, because the revision id > register read at a lower value that 0x13, so the quirk test failed improperly. > Given this, it seems only prudent to adjust this quirk so that any revision less > than 0x13 has the quirk asserted. > > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> > CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> > CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> > CC: x86@kernel.org > --- > arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c > index bc4a088..2237b36 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c > @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static void __init intel_remapping_check(int num, int slot, int func) > * and should be flagged as broken. Additionally revisions 0x12 > * and 0x22 of device id 0x3405 has this problem. > */ > - if (revision == 0x13) > + if (revision < 0x13) > set_irq_remapping_broken(); > else if ((device == 0x3405) && > ((revision == 0x12) || > -- > 1.8.3.1 > > Shoot, self-NAK, that should be <=, new post shortly. Neil
| |