linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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).