| Message ID | 20191126131753.3424363-1-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Revert patches fixing probing of interrupts | expand |
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:17:51AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com> > > Revert the patches that were fixing the probing of interrupts due > to reports of interrupt stroms on some systems Can you explain how reverting is going to fix the issue? This is wrong way to move forward. The root cause must be identified first and then decide actions like always in any situation. /Jarkko
On 11/29/19 5:37 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:17:51AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: >> From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com> >> >> Revert the patches that were fixing the probing of interrupts due >> to reports of interrupt stroms on some systems > Can you explain how reverting is going to fix the issue? The reverts fix 'the interrupt storm issue' that they are causing on some systems but don't fix the issue with the interrupt mode not being used. I was hoping Jerry would get access to a system faster but this didn't seem to be the case. So sending these patches seemed the better solution than leaving 5.4.x with the problem but going back to when it worked 'better.' > > This is wrong way to move forward. The root cause must be identified > first and then decide actions like always in any situation. > > /Jarkko
On Sun Dec 01 19, Stefan Berger wrote: >On 11/29/19 5:37 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:17:51AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: >>>From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com> >>> >>>Revert the patches that were fixing the probing of interrupts due >>>to reports of interrupt stroms on some systems >>Can you explain how reverting is going to fix the issue? > > >The reverts fix 'the interrupt storm issue' that they are causing on >some systems but don't fix the issue with the interrupt mode not being >used. I was hoping Jerry would get access to a system faster but this >didn't seem to be the case. So sending these patches seemed the better >solution than leaving 5.4.x with the problem but going back to when it >worked 'better.' > I finally heard back from IT support, and unfortunately they don't have any T490s systems to give out on temp loan. So I can only send patched kernels to the end user that had the problem. > >> >>This is wrong way to move forward. The root cause must be identified >>first and then decide actions like always in any situation. >> >>/Jarkko > >
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:55:20AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > On Sun Dec 01 19, Stefan Berger wrote: > > On 11/29/19 5:37 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:17:51AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > Revert the patches that were fixing the probing of interrupts due > > > > to reports of interrupt stroms on some systems > > > Can you explain how reverting is going to fix the issue? > > > > > > The reverts fix 'the interrupt storm issue' that they are causing on > > some systems but don't fix the issue with the interrupt mode not being > > used. I was hoping Jerry would get access to a system faster but this > > didn't seem to be the case. So sending these patches seemed the better > > solution than leaving 5.4.x with the problem but going back to when it > > worked 'better.' > > > > I finally heard back from IT support, and unfortunately they don't > have any T490s systems to give out on temp loan. So I can only send > patched kernels to the end user that had the problem. At least it is a fact that tpm_chip_stop() is called too early and that is destined to cause issues. Should I bake a patch or do you have already something? /Jarkko
On Mon Dec 09 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:55:20AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: >> On Sun Dec 01 19, Stefan Berger wrote: >> > On 11/29/19 5:37 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:17:51AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: >> > > > From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com> >> > > > >> > > > Revert the patches that were fixing the probing of interrupts due >> > > > to reports of interrupt stroms on some systems >> > > Can you explain how reverting is going to fix the issue? >> > >> > >> > The reverts fix 'the interrupt storm issue' that they are causing on >> > some systems but don't fix the issue with the interrupt mode not being >> > used. I was hoping Jerry would get access to a system faster but this >> > didn't seem to be the case. So sending these patches seemed the better >> > solution than leaving 5.4.x with the problem but going back to when it >> > worked 'better.' >> > >> >> I finally heard back from IT support, and unfortunately they don't >> have any T490s systems to give out on temp loan. So I can only send >> patched kernels to the end user that had the problem. > >At least it is a fact that tpm_chip_stop() is called too early and that >is destined to cause issues. > >Should I bake a patch or do you have already something? > >/Jarkko > This is what I'm currently building: diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c index 270f43acbb77..17184c07eb51 100644 --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c @@ -899,13 +899,13 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq, if (wait_startup(chip, 0) != 0) { rc = -ENODEV; - goto out_err; + goto out_start; } /* Take control of the TPM's interrupt hardware and shut it off */ rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), &intmask); if (rc < 0) - goto out_err; + goto out_start; intmask |= TPM_INTF_CMD_READY_INT | TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT | TPM_INTF_DATA_AVAIL_INT | TPM_INTF_STS_VALID_INT; @@ -914,9 +914,8 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq, rc = tpm_chip_start(chip); if (rc) - goto out_err; + goto out_start; rc = tpm2_probe(chip); - tpm_chip_stop(chip); if (rc) goto out_err; @@ -980,7 +979,6 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq, goto out_err; } - tpm_chip_start(chip); chip->flags |= TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ; if (irq) { tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(chip, intmask, IRQF_SHARED, @@ -991,18 +989,17 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq, } else { tpm_tis_probe_irq(chip, intmask); } - tpm_chip_stop(chip); } + tpm_chip_stop(chip); rc = tpm_chip_register(chip); if (rc) - goto out_err; - - if (chip->ops->clk_enable != NULL) - chip->ops->clk_enable(chip, false); + goto out_start; return 0; out_err: + tpm_chip_stop(chip); +out_start: if ((chip->ops != NULL) && (chip->ops->clk_enable != NULL)) chip->ops->clk_enable(chip, false);
On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 02:55:35PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > On Mon Dec 09 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 11:55:20AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > On Sun Dec 01 19, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > On 11/29/19 5:37 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:17:51AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > > From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Revert the patches that were fixing the probing of interrupts due > > > > > > to reports of interrupt stroms on some systems > > > > > Can you explain how reverting is going to fix the issue? > > > > > > > > > > > > The reverts fix 'the interrupt storm issue' that they are causing on > > > > some systems but don't fix the issue with the interrupt mode not being > > > > used. I was hoping Jerry would get access to a system faster but this > > > > didn't seem to be the case. So sending these patches seemed the better > > > > solution than leaving 5.4.x with the problem but going back to when it > > > > worked 'better.' > > > > > > > > > > I finally heard back from IT support, and unfortunately they don't > > > have any T490s systems to give out on temp loan. So I can only send > > > patched kernels to the end user that had the problem. > > > > At least it is a fact that tpm_chip_stop() is called too early and that > > is destined to cause issues. > > > > Should I bake a patch or do you have already something? > > > > /Jarkko > > > > This is what I'm currently building: With a quick skim looks what I had in mind. /Jarkko
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com> Revert the patches that were fixing the probing of interrupts due to reports of interrupt stroms on some systems The following Linux kernel versions are affected: - 5.4 - 5.3.4 and later - 5.2.19 and later Stefan Berger (2): tpm: Revert "tpm_tis_core: Set TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ before probing for interrupts" tpm: Revert "tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's" drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)