On 12/22/20 2:23 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, BALATON Zoltan via wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> commit 459ca8bfa41 ("pci: Assert irqnum is between 0 and bus->nirqs in
>>> pci_bus_change_irq_level") added sanity checks to the interrupt number
>>> passed
>>> to pci_bus_change_irq_level(). That makes sense, given that bus->irq_count
>>> is indexed and sized by the number of interrupts.
>>>
>>> However, as it turns out, the interrupt number passed to this function
>>> is the _mapped_ interrupt number. The result in assertion failures for
>>> various
>>> emulations.
>>>
>>> Examples (I don't know if there are others):
>>>
>>> - ppc4xx_pci_map_irq() maps the interrupt number to "slot - 1". Obviously
>>> that isn't a good thing to do for slot 0, and indeed results in an
>>> assertion as soon as slot 0 is initialized (presumably that is the root
>>> bridge). Changing the mapping to "slot" doesn't help because valid slots
>>> are 0..4, and only four interrupts are allocated.
>>
>> Is that with sam460ex? This ppc4xx_pci_map_irq appears in ppc4xx-host-bridge
>> and hw/ppc/ppc440_pcix.c (which is used by sam460ex) has a
>> ppc4xx-host-bridge. Other user of it may be the bamboo 440 board where this
>> host bridge appears too. I did not see asserts with sam460ex but I've only
>> tested it with AmigaOS which may use it in an odd way not tripping the check.
>
> I've just remembered that for sam460ex we had this commit: 484ab3dffadc
> (sam460ex: Fix PCI interrupts with multiple devices) that changed that
> mapping for that machine so I guess you got the exception with the bamboo
> board then. I'm not sure though that similar fix is applicable fot that or
> even that this fix is correct for sam460ex but appears to work so far.
>
Yes, it is for bamboo. I think I'll just keep the mapping I came up with;
that seems to work for me.
Thanks,
Guenter
