From: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
To: Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com
Cc: helgaas@kernel.org, oohall@gmail.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
mr.nuke.me@gmail.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
Austin.Bolen@dell.com, Shyam.Iyer@dell.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jonathan.derrick@intel.com,
lukas@wunner.de, ruscur@russell.cc, sbobroff@linux.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI/MSI: Don't touch MSI bits when the PCI device is disconnected
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 13:23:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181114202333.GE11416@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1eb0fa27924f426992715684f5e63346@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 07:22:04PM +0000, Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com wrote:
> On 11/14/2018 12:00 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Just to make sure we're on the same page, can you point me to this
> > rule? I do see that OSPM must request control of AER using _OSC
> > before it touches the AER registers. What I don't see is the
> > connection between firmware-first and the AER registers.
>
> ACPI 6.2 - 6.2.11.3, Table 6-197:
>
> PCI Express Advanced Error Reporting control:
> * The firmware sets this bit to 1 to grant control over PCI Express
> Advanced Error Reporting. If firmware allows the OS control of this
> feature, then in the context of the _OSC method it must ensure that
> error messages are routed to device interrupts as described in the PCI
> Express Base Specification[...]
>
> Now I'm confused too:
> * HEST -> __aer_firmware_first
> This is used for touching/not touching AER bits
> * _OSC -> bridge->native_aer
> Used to enable/not enable AER portdrv service
> Maybe Keith knows better why we're doing it this way. From ACPI text, it
> doesn't seem that control of AER would be tied to HEST entries, although
> in practice, it is.
I'm not sure, that predates me. HEST does have a FIRMWARE_FIRST flag, but
spec does not say anymore on relation to _OSC control or AER capability.
Nothing in PCIe spec either.
I also don't know why Linux disables the AER driver if only one
device has a FIRMWARE_FIRST HEST. Shouldn't that just be a per-device
decision?
> > The closest I can find is the "Enabled" field in the HEST PCIe
> > AER structures (ACPI v6.2, sec 18.3.2.4, .5, .6), where it says:
> >
> > If the field value is 1, indicates this error source is
> > to be enabled.
> >
> > If the field value is 0, indicates that the error source
> > is not to be enabled.
> >
> > If FIRMWARE_FIRST is set in the flags field, the Enabled
> > field is ignored by the OSPM.
> >
> > AFAICT, Linux completely ignores the Enabled field in these
> > structures.
>
> I don't think ignoring the field is a problem:
> * With FFS, OS should ignore it.
> * Without FFS, we have control, and we get to make the decisions anyway.
> In the latter case we decide whether to use AER, independent of the crap
> in ACPI. I'm not even sure why "Enabled" matters in native AER handling.
> Probably one of the check-boxes in "Binary table designer's handbook"?
And why doesn't Linux do anything with _OSC response other than logging
it? If OS control wasn't granted, shouldn't that take priority over HEST?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-14 20:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-18 22:15 [PATCH v2] PCI/MSI: Don't touch MSI bits when the PCI device is disconnected Alexandru Gagniuc
2018-11-06 0:32 ` Alex G.
2018-11-07 17:04 ` Derrick, Jonathan
2018-11-07 23:42 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-11-08 20:09 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-11-08 21:49 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-08 22:01 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-11-08 22:32 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-08 22:42 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-11-08 22:49 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-08 22:51 ` Greg KH
2018-11-08 23:06 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-12 5:49 ` Oliver O'Halloran
2018-11-12 20:05 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-13 5:02 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-11-13 22:39 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-13 22:52 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-14 0:31 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-14 5:59 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-11-14 19:22 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-14 19:41 ` Derrick, Jonathan
2018-11-14 20:23 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2018-11-14 20:52 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-14 20:58 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-15 6:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-11-16 0:19 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-08 23:03 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-09 7:29 ` Lukas Wunner
2018-11-09 11:32 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-11-09 16:36 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-08 22:20 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-09 7:11 ` Lukas Wunner
2018-11-12 5:48 ` Oliver O'Halloran
2018-12-27 19:28 ` Alex_Gagniuc
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=20181114202333.GE11416@localhost.localdomain \
--to=keith.busch@intel.com \
--cc=Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com \
--cc=Austin.Bolen@dell.com \
--cc=Shyam.Iyer@dell.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=jonathan.derrick@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=mr.nuke.me@gmail.com \
--cc=oohall@gmail.com \
--cc=ruscur@russell.cc \
--cc=sbobroff@linux.ibm.com \
/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).