All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Naveen Naidu <naveennaidu479@gmail.com>
To: "Pali Rohár" <pali@kernel.org>
Cc: bhelgaas@google.com,
	linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"moderated list:PCI DRIVER FOR AARDVARK (Marvell Armada 3700)"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/22] PCI: aardvark: Use SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE() when device not found
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 21:29:28 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211012155928.3nuyzgrgvyjm2v3r@theprophet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211011184144.qcbmif7hvzozdgzw@pali>

On 11/10, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 11 October 2021 23:55:35 Naveen Naidu wrote:
> > On 11/10, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Monday 11 October 2021 23:26:33 Naveen Naidu wrote:
> > > > An MMIO read from a PCI device that doesn't exist or doesn't respond
> > > > causes a PCI error.  There's no real data to return to satisfy the
> > > > CPU read, so most hardware fabricates ~0 data.
> > > > 
> > > > Use SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE() to set the error response, when a faulty
> > > > read occurs.
> > > > 
> > > > This helps unify PCI error response checking and make error check
> > > > consistent and easier to find.
> > > > 
> > > > Compile tested only.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen Naidu <naveennaidu479@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c | 8 ++++----
> > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > index 596ebcfcc82d..dc2f820ef55f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > @@ -894,7 +894,7 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn,
> > > >  	int ret;
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (!advk_pcie_valid_device(pcie, bus, devfn)) {
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > 
> > > Hello! Now I'm looking at this macro, and should not it depends on
> > > "size" argument? If doing 8-bit or 16-bit read operation then should not
> > > it rather sets only low 8 bits or low 16 bits to ones?
> > >
> > 
> > Hello o/, Thank you for the review.
> > 
> > Yes! you are right that it should indeed depend on the "size" argument.
> > And that is what the SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE macro does. The macro is
> > defined as:
> > 
> >   #define PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE           (~0ULL)
> >   #define SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val)  (*val = ((typeof(*val))PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE))
> > 
> > The macro was part of "Patch 1/22" and is present here [1]. Apologies if
> > I added the receipient incorrectly.
> > 
> > [1]:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/d8e423386aad3d78bca575a7521b138508638e3b.1633972263.git.naveennaidu479@gmail.com/T/#m37295a0dcfe0d7e0f67efce3633efd7b891949c4
> > 
> > IIUC, the typeof(*val) helps in setting the value according to the size
> > of the argument.
> > 
> > Please let me know if my understanding is wrong.
> 
> Hello! I mean "size" function argument which is passed as variable.
>

Thank you for explaining! Now I understand what you mean :), Apologies
for not being not understanding this beforehand.

> Function itself is declared as:
> 
> static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, int where, int size, u32 *val);
> 
> And in "size" argument is stored number of bytes, kind of read operation
> (read byte, read word, read dword). In *val is then stored read value.
> For byte operation, just low 8 bits in *val variable are set.
> 
> Because *val is u32 it means that typeof(*val) is always 4 independently
> of the "size" argument.
> 
> For example other project U-Boot has also pci-aardvark.c driver and
> U-Boot has for (probably same) purpose pci_get_ff() macro, see:
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/v2021.10/drivers/pci/pci-aardvark.c#L367
> 
> I'm not saying if current approach to always sets 0xffffffff
> (independently of "size" argument) is correct or not as I do not know
> it too! I'm just giving example that this PCI code has very similar
> implementation of other project (U-Boot) which sets number of ones based
> on the size argument.
>

I am not sure too, if we would like to have something like pci_get_ff()
which sets the return mask based on the size.

If we were to have something like pci_get_ff(), I can think of one
problem, some of the functions such as pci_raw_set_power_state() which
checks for errors does not have a "size" argument. An excerpt from that
function is as follows:
  static int pci_raw_set_power_state(struct pci_dev *dev, pci_power_t state)
  {
    pci_read_config_word(dev, dev->pm_cap + PCI_PM_CTRL, &pmcsr);
        if (pmcsr == (u16) ~0) {

For these functions we wont be able to use pci_get_ff(), I mean we could
definitely put the responsibility onto the programmers to write down the
correct size. But that might lead to mistakes, I guess?

Then for those cases, we might need to maintain both the
SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE macro and the pci_get_ff() functions, which then
means that we might not have the same style for signalling config read
error.

I am pretty new to kernel development, so I am sure that whatever I said
above might be totally wrong. If so, please correct me :)

> So probably something for other people to decide.
> 
> Anyway, I very like this your idea to have a macro which purpose is to
> explicitly indicate error during config read operation! And to unify all
> drivers to use same style for signalling config read error.
> 

Thank you :D, I think I'll wait for other people to chime in here with
their opinions and then I'll redo the patch with whatever will be
decided.

Thank again for the detailed reply.

> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn,
> > > >  			*val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL;
> > > >  			return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
> > > >  		}
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -955,14 +955,14 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn,
> > > >  			*val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL;
> > > >  			return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
> > > >  		}
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* Check PIO status and get the read result */
> > > >  	ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, allow_crs, val);
> > > >  	if (ret < 0) {
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.25.1
> > > > 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Naveen Naidu <naveennaidu479@gmail.com>
To: "Pali Rohár" <pali@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	bhelgaas@google.com,
	linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	"moderated list:PCI DRIVER FOR AARDVARK (Marvell Armada 3700)"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/22] PCI: aardvark: Use SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE() when device not found
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 21:29:28 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211012155928.3nuyzgrgvyjm2v3r@theprophet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211011184144.qcbmif7hvzozdgzw@pali>

On 11/10, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 11 October 2021 23:55:35 Naveen Naidu wrote:
> > On 11/10, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Monday 11 October 2021 23:26:33 Naveen Naidu wrote:
> > > > An MMIO read from a PCI device that doesn't exist or doesn't respond
> > > > causes a PCI error.  There's no real data to return to satisfy the
> > > > CPU read, so most hardware fabricates ~0 data.
> > > > 
> > > > Use SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE() to set the error response, when a faulty
> > > > read occurs.
> > > > 
> > > > This helps unify PCI error response checking and make error check
> > > > consistent and easier to find.
> > > > 
> > > > Compile tested only.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen Naidu <naveennaidu479@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c | 8 ++++----
> > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > index 596ebcfcc82d..dc2f820ef55f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > @@ -894,7 +894,7 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn,
> > > >  	int ret;
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (!advk_pcie_valid_device(pcie, bus, devfn)) {
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > 
> > > Hello! Now I'm looking at this macro, and should not it depends on
> > > "size" argument? If doing 8-bit or 16-bit read operation then should not
> > > it rather sets only low 8 bits or low 16 bits to ones?
> > >
> > 
> > Hello o/, Thank you for the review.
> > 
> > Yes! you are right that it should indeed depend on the "size" argument.
> > And that is what the SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE macro does. The macro is
> > defined as:
> > 
> >   #define PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE           (~0ULL)
> >   #define SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val)  (*val = ((typeof(*val))PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE))
> > 
> > The macro was part of "Patch 1/22" and is present here [1]. Apologies if
> > I added the receipient incorrectly.
> > 
> > [1]:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/d8e423386aad3d78bca575a7521b138508638e3b.1633972263.git.naveennaidu479@gmail.com/T/#m37295a0dcfe0d7e0f67efce3633efd7b891949c4
> > 
> > IIUC, the typeof(*val) helps in setting the value according to the size
> > of the argument.
> > 
> > Please let me know if my understanding is wrong.
> 
> Hello! I mean "size" function argument which is passed as variable.
>

Thank you for explaining! Now I understand what you mean :), Apologies
for not being not understanding this beforehand.

> Function itself is declared as:
> 
> static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, int where, int size, u32 *val);
> 
> And in "size" argument is stored number of bytes, kind of read operation
> (read byte, read word, read dword). In *val is then stored read value.
> For byte operation, just low 8 bits in *val variable are set.
> 
> Because *val is u32 it means that typeof(*val) is always 4 independently
> of the "size" argument.
> 
> For example other project U-Boot has also pci-aardvark.c driver and
> U-Boot has for (probably same) purpose pci_get_ff() macro, see:
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/v2021.10/drivers/pci/pci-aardvark.c#L367
> 
> I'm not saying if current approach to always sets 0xffffffff
> (independently of "size" argument) is correct or not as I do not know
> it too! I'm just giving example that this PCI code has very similar
> implementation of other project (U-Boot) which sets number of ones based
> on the size argument.
>

I am not sure too, if we would like to have something like pci_get_ff()
which sets the return mask based on the size.

If we were to have something like pci_get_ff(), I can think of one
problem, some of the functions such as pci_raw_set_power_state() which
checks for errors does not have a "size" argument. An excerpt from that
function is as follows:
  static int pci_raw_set_power_state(struct pci_dev *dev, pci_power_t state)
  {
    pci_read_config_word(dev, dev->pm_cap + PCI_PM_CTRL, &pmcsr);
        if (pmcsr == (u16) ~0) {

For these functions we wont be able to use pci_get_ff(), I mean we could
definitely put the responsibility onto the programmers to write down the
correct size. But that might lead to mistakes, I guess?

Then for those cases, we might need to maintain both the
SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE macro and the pci_get_ff() functions, which then
means that we might not have the same style for signalling config read
error.

I am pretty new to kernel development, so I am sure that whatever I said
above might be totally wrong. If so, please correct me :)

> So probably something for other people to decide.
> 
> Anyway, I very like this your idea to have a macro which purpose is to
> explicitly indicate error during config read operation! And to unify all
> drivers to use same style for signalling config read error.
> 

Thank you :D, I think I'll wait for other people to chime in here with
their opinions and then I'll redo the patch with whatever will be
decided.

Thank again for the detailed reply.

> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn,
> > > >  			*val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL;
> > > >  			return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
> > > >  		}
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -955,14 +955,14 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn,
> > > >  			*val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL;
> > > >  			return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
> > > >  		}
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* Check PIO status and get the read result */
> > > >  	ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, allow_crs, val);
> > > >  	if (ret < 0) {
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.25.1
> > > > 
_______________________________________________
Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list
Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Naveen Naidu <naveennaidu479@gmail.com>
To: "Pali Rohár" <pali@kernel.org>
Cc: bhelgaas@google.com,
	linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"moderated list:PCI DRIVER FOR AARDVARK (Marvell Armada 3700)"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/22] PCI: aardvark: Use SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE() when device not found
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 21:29:28 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211012155928.3nuyzgrgvyjm2v3r@theprophet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211011184144.qcbmif7hvzozdgzw@pali>

On 11/10, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 11 October 2021 23:55:35 Naveen Naidu wrote:
> > On 11/10, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Monday 11 October 2021 23:26:33 Naveen Naidu wrote:
> > > > An MMIO read from a PCI device that doesn't exist or doesn't respond
> > > > causes a PCI error.  There's no real data to return to satisfy the
> > > > CPU read, so most hardware fabricates ~0 data.
> > > > 
> > > > Use SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE() to set the error response, when a faulty
> > > > read occurs.
> > > > 
> > > > This helps unify PCI error response checking and make error check
> > > > consistent and easier to find.
> > > > 
> > > > Compile tested only.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen Naidu <naveennaidu479@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c | 8 ++++----
> > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > index 596ebcfcc82d..dc2f820ef55f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > @@ -894,7 +894,7 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn,
> > > >  	int ret;
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (!advk_pcie_valid_device(pcie, bus, devfn)) {
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > 
> > > Hello! Now I'm looking at this macro, and should not it depends on
> > > "size" argument? If doing 8-bit or 16-bit read operation then should not
> > > it rather sets only low 8 bits or low 16 bits to ones?
> > >
> > 
> > Hello o/, Thank you for the review.
> > 
> > Yes! you are right that it should indeed depend on the "size" argument.
> > And that is what the SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE macro does. The macro is
> > defined as:
> > 
> >   #define PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE           (~0ULL)
> >   #define SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val)  (*val = ((typeof(*val))PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE))
> > 
> > The macro was part of "Patch 1/22" and is present here [1]. Apologies if
> > I added the receipient incorrectly.
> > 
> > [1]:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/d8e423386aad3d78bca575a7521b138508638e3b.1633972263.git.naveennaidu479@gmail.com/T/#m37295a0dcfe0d7e0f67efce3633efd7b891949c4
> > 
> > IIUC, the typeof(*val) helps in setting the value according to the size
> > of the argument.
> > 
> > Please let me know if my understanding is wrong.
> 
> Hello! I mean "size" function argument which is passed as variable.
>

Thank you for explaining! Now I understand what you mean :), Apologies
for not being not understanding this beforehand.

> Function itself is declared as:
> 
> static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, int where, int size, u32 *val);
> 
> And in "size" argument is stored number of bytes, kind of read operation
> (read byte, read word, read dword). In *val is then stored read value.
> For byte operation, just low 8 bits in *val variable are set.
> 
> Because *val is u32 it means that typeof(*val) is always 4 independently
> of the "size" argument.
> 
> For example other project U-Boot has also pci-aardvark.c driver and
> U-Boot has for (probably same) purpose pci_get_ff() macro, see:
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/v2021.10/drivers/pci/pci-aardvark.c#L367
> 
> I'm not saying if current approach to always sets 0xffffffff
> (independently of "size" argument) is correct or not as I do not know
> it too! I'm just giving example that this PCI code has very similar
> implementation of other project (U-Boot) which sets number of ones based
> on the size argument.
>

I am not sure too, if we would like to have something like pci_get_ff()
which sets the return mask based on the size.

If we were to have something like pci_get_ff(), I can think of one
problem, some of the functions such as pci_raw_set_power_state() which
checks for errors does not have a "size" argument. An excerpt from that
function is as follows:
  static int pci_raw_set_power_state(struct pci_dev *dev, pci_power_t state)
  {
    pci_read_config_word(dev, dev->pm_cap + PCI_PM_CTRL, &pmcsr);
        if (pmcsr == (u16) ~0) {

For these functions we wont be able to use pci_get_ff(), I mean we could
definitely put the responsibility onto the programmers to write down the
correct size. But that might lead to mistakes, I guess?

Then for those cases, we might need to maintain both the
SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE macro and the pci_get_ff() functions, which then
means that we might not have the same style for signalling config read
error.

I am pretty new to kernel development, so I am sure that whatever I said
above might be totally wrong. If so, please correct me :)

> So probably something for other people to decide.
> 
> Anyway, I very like this your idea to have a macro which purpose is to
> explicitly indicate error during config read operation! And to unify all
> drivers to use same style for signalling config read error.
> 

Thank you :D, I think I'll wait for other people to chime in here with
their opinions and then I'll redo the patch with whatever will be
decided.

Thank again for the detailed reply.

> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn,
> > > >  			*val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL;
> > > >  			return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
> > > >  		}
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -955,14 +955,14 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn,
> > > >  			*val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL;
> > > >  			return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
> > > >  		}
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* Check PIO status and get the read result */
> > > >  	ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, allow_crs, val);
> > > >  	if (ret < 0) {
> > > > -		*val = 0xffffffff;
> > > > +		SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE(val);
> > > >  		return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.25.1
> > > > 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-12 15:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 117+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-11 17:35 [PATCH 00/22] PCI: Unify PCI error response checking Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:35 ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:35 ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:35 ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:35 ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:35 ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:37 ` [PATCH 01/22] PCI: Add PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE and it's related defintions Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:37   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:37   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:37   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:37   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:37   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:38 ` [PATCH 02/22] PCI: Unify PCI error response checking Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:38   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 22:05   ` Rob Herring
2021-10-11 22:05     ` Rob Herring
2021-10-12 16:21     ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-12 16:21       ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-12 18:02       ` Rob Herring
2021-10-12 18:02         ` Rob Herring
2021-10-12 22:52       ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-12 22:52         ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-13  2:43     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-10-13  2:43       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-10-13 13:06       ` Rob Herring
2021-10-13 13:06         ` Rob Herring
2021-10-13 17:16         ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-13 17:16           ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-13 17:54           ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-13 17:54             ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-13 18:48           ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-10-13 18:48             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-10-13 21:47           ` Rob Herring
2021-10-13 21:47             ` Rob Herring
2021-10-13 22:03             ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-13 22:03               ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-13 22:12             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-10-13 22:12               ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-10-11 17:45 ` [PATCH 03/22] PCI: thunder: Use SET_PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE() when device not found Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:45   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:45   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:46 ` [PATCH 04/22] PCI: iproc: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:46   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:46   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:51 ` [PATCH 05/22] PCI: mediatek: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:51   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:51   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:51   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:52 ` [PATCH 06/22] PCI: exynos: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:52   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:52   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:53 ` [PATCH 07/22] PCI: histb: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:53   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:55 ` [PATCH 08/22] PCI: kirin: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:55   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:56 ` [PATCH 09/22] PCI: aardvark: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:56   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 17:56   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:08   ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-11 18:08     ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-11 18:08     ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-11 18:28     ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:28       ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:28       ` Naveen Naidu
     [not found]     ` <20211011182526.kboaxqofdpd2jjrl@theprophet>
2021-10-11 18:41       ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-11 18:41         ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-11 18:41         ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-12 15:59         ` Naveen Naidu [this message]
2021-10-12 15:59           ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-12 15:59           ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-13  2:13           ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-10-13  2:13             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-10-13  2:13             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-10-13 17:59             ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-13 17:59               ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-13 17:59               ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-11 18:00 ` [PATCH 10/22] PCI: mvebu: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:00   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:00   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:00 ` [PATCH 11/22] PCI: altera: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:00   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:02 ` [PATCH 12/22] PCI: rcar: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:02   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:02 ` [PATCH 13/22] PCI: rockchip: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:02   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:02   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:02   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:04 ` [PATCH 14/22] PCI/ERR: Use RESPONSE_IS_PCI_ERROR() to check read from hardware Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:04   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:06 ` [PATCH 15/22] PCI: vmd: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:06   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-14 18:04   ` Jonathan Derrick
2021-10-14 18:04     ` Jonathan Derrick
2021-10-11 18:07 ` [PATCH 16/22] PCI: pciehp: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:07   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 19:47   ` Lukas Wunner
2021-10-11 19:47     ` Lukas Wunner
2021-10-12 16:05     ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-12 16:05       ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-12 23:12       ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-12 23:12         ` Pali Rohár
2021-10-13 12:20         ` Lukas Wunner
2021-10-13 12:20           ` Lukas Wunner
2021-10-11 18:08 ` [PATCH 17/22] PCI/DPC: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:08   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:08   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:10 ` [PATCH 18/22] PCI/PME: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:10   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:11 ` [PATCH 19/22] PCI: cpqphp: " Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:11   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:11 ` [PATCH 20/22] PCI: keystone: Use PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE to specify hardware error Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:11   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:12 ` [PATCH 21/22] PCI: hv: Use PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE to specify hardware read error Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:12   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:13 ` [PATCH 22/22] PCI: xgene: Use PCI_ERROR_RESPONSE to specify hardware error Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:13   ` Naveen Naidu
2021-10-11 18:13   ` Naveen Naidu

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=20211012155928.3nuyzgrgvyjm2v3r@theprophet \
    --to=naveennaidu479@gmail.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=kw@linux.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=pali@kernel.org \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.