From: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: ashok.raj@intel.com, knsathya@kernel.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] PCI/DPC: Ignore devices with no AER Capability
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 20:32:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <58125a09-822f-8bda-e715-fd14451ef308@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201128232500.GA929114@bjorn-Precision-5520>
On 11/28/20 3:25 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 01:56:23PM -0800, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> On 11/28/20 1:53 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 01:49:46PM -0800, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/20 12:24 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 06:01:57PM -0800, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/25/20 5:18 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Downstream Ports may support DPC regardless of whether they support AER
>>>>>>> (see PCIe r5.0, sec 6.2.10.2). Previously, if the user booted with
>>>>>>> "pcie_ports=dpc-native", it was possible for dpc_probe() to succeed even if
>>>>>>> the device had no AER Capability, but dpc_get_aer_uncorrect_severity()
>>>>>>> depends on the AER Capability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dpc_probe() previously failed if:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> !pcie_aer_is_native(pdev) && !pcie_ports_dpc_native
>>>>>>> !(pcie_aer_is_native() || pcie_ports_dpc_native) # by De Morgan's law
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so it succeeded if:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pcie_aer_is_native() || pcie_ports_dpc_native
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fail dpc_probe() if the device has no AER Capability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c | 3 +++
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c
>>>>>>> index e05aba86a317..ed0dbc43d018 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c
>>>>>>> @@ -287,6 +287,9 @@ static int dpc_probe(struct pcie_device *dev)
>>>>>>> int status;
>>>>>>> u16 ctl, cap;
>>>>>>> + if (!pdev->aer_cap)
>>>>>>> + return -ENOTSUPP;
>>>>>> Don't we check aer_cap support in drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_core.c ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't enable DPC service, if AER service is not enabled. And AER
>>>>>> service is only enabled if AER capability is supported.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So dpc_probe() should not happen if AER capability is not supported?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that's always true. If I'm reading this right, we have
>>>>> this:
>>>>>
>>>>> get_port_device_capability(...)
>>>>> {
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCIEAER
>>>>> if (dev->aer_cap && ...)
>>>>> services |= PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_AER;
>>>>> #endif
>>>>>
>>>>> if (pci_find_ext_capability(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_DPC) &&
>>>>> pci_aer_available() &&
>>>>> (pcie_ports_dpc_native || (services & PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_AER)))
>>>>> services |= PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_DPC;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> and in the case where:
>>>>>
>>>>> - CONFIG_PCIEAER=y
>>>>> - booted with "pcie_ports=dpc-native" (pcie_ports_dpc_native is true)
>>>>> - "dev" has no AER capability
>>>>> - "dev" has DPC capability
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we do enable PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_DPC.
>>>> Got it. But further looking into it, I am wondering whether
>>>> we should keep this dependency? Currently we just use it to
>>>> dump the error information. Do we need to create dependency
>>>> between DPC and AER (which is functionality not dependent) just
>>>> to see more details about the error?
>>>
>>> That's a good question, but I don't really want to get into the actual
>>> operation of the AER and DPC drivers in this series, so maybe
>>> something we should explore later.
>
>> In that case, can you move this check to
>> drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_core.c? I don't see the point of
>> distributed checks in both get_port_device_capability() and
>> dpc_probe().
>
> I totally agree that these distributed checks are terrible, but my
> long-term hope is to get rid of portdrv and handle these "services"
> more like we handle other capabilities. For example, maybe we can
> squash dpc_probe() into pci_dpc_init(), so I'd actually like to move
> things from get_port_device_capability() into dpc_probe().
Removing the service driver model will be a major overhaul. It would
affect even the error recovery drivers. You can find motivation
for service drivers in Documentation/PCI/pciebus-howto.rst.
But till we fix this part, I recommend grouping all dependency checks
to one place (either dpc_probe() or portdrv service driver).
>
--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-29 4:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-26 1:18 [PATCH v12 0/5] Simplify PCIe native ownership Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-26 1:18 ` [PATCH 1/5] PCI/DPC: Ignore devices with no AER Capability Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-26 2:01 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-11-28 20:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-28 21:49 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-11-28 21:53 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-28 21:56 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-11-28 23:25 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-29 4:32 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan [this message]
2020-12-01 15:34 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-26 1:18 ` [PATCH 2/5] PCI: Assume control of portdrv-related features only when portdrv enabled Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-26 1:18 ` [PATCH 3/5] PCI/ACPI: Tidy _OSC control bit checking Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-26 1:18 ` [PATCH 4/5] PCI/ACPI: Centralize pcie_ports_native checking Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-26 3:20 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-11-28 21:45 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-26 1:18 ` [PATCH 5/5] PCI/ACPI: Centralize pci_aer_available() checking Bjorn Helgaas
2020-11-26 3:48 ` [PATCH v12 0/5] Simplify PCIe native ownership Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-12-01 1:11 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-12-08 6:03 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=58125a09-822f-8bda-e715-fd14451ef308@linux.intel.com \
--to=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=knsathya@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).