Xenia Ragiadakou wrote: > On 08/29/2013 04:31 PM, Martin MOKREJŠ wrote: >> Actually, there is some new bug I haven't seen before (this is 3.10.9 >> kernel). >> First of all, I see my TI XHCI controller does not use MSI-X anymore, will >> have >> to check my .config why is it so. >> Second, it should have IRQ 45 and 46 according to dmesg. But lspci reports >> IRQ 16 is used by TI XHCI controller. Funny! I would say this is linux-pci >> issue >> but provided XHCI_HCD is special and manages interrupts somewhat on its own >> you may >> look into that first before we ask linux-pci developers. >> >> Martin MOKREJŠ wrote: >> > > Hi Martin, > > regarding the different IRQ lines reported by lspci and dmesg maybe it is due > to the fact that lspci reports the irq field of the pci_dev (when the option > -b is not set, because if it is set it will report the physical IRQ line > stored the xhc pci configuration register) while dmesg and /proc/interruputs > output the msi/msix vector entries. > So i suspect that if the controller had not msi/msix capabilities the > pci_dev->irq would be also reported in /proc/interrupts. > However, i am so new to the field that the most probable is that i say > nonsense :) That is what i came to by having a quick look in xhci and > pciutils source code. Somebody else would be more suitable to clear out this > discrepancy between lspci and /proc/interrupts IRQ line values.
So is that a bug in pciutils or in xhci or something writing a value to procfs? I don't understand kernel at all so to me your answer sounds quite good. ;) Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
