Linux-ACPI Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Sean V Kelley <sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com>
Cc: <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
	<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	<linuxarm@huawei.com>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI/AER: Add support for reset of RCiEPs for APEI/Firmware first reporting only
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 17:32:13 +0100
Message-ID: <20200708173213.00001852@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EC08D16A-5434-4021-A28B-D7121DDF98B7@linux.intel.com>

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 09:01:13 -0700
Sean V Kelley <sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On 8 Jul 2020, at 8:39, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:56:26 -0700
> > Sean V Kelley <sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 3 Jul 2020, at 1:23, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >>  
> >>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:06:26 -0700
> >>> Sean V Kelley <sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>>  
> >>>> On 26 Jun 2020, at 11:41, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >>>>  
> >>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:29:34 -0700
> >>>>> Sean V Kelley <sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>> Hi,  
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for taking a look.
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 22 Jun 2020, at 4:44, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>>> Was previously: PCI/AER: Add partial initial supprot for
> >>>>>>> RCiEPs
> >>>>>>> using
> >>>>>>> RCEC or
> >>>>>>> firmware first.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Currently the kernel does not handle AER errors for Root
> >>>>>>> Complex
> >>>>>>> integrated
> >>>>>>> End Points (RCiEPs)[0].  These devices sit on a root bus
> >>>>>>> within
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> Root Complex
> >>>>>>> (RC).  AER handling is performed by a Root Complex Event
> >>>>>>> Collector
> >>>>>>> (RCEC) [1]
> >>>>>>> which is a effectively a type of RCiEP on the same root bus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This code will only perform the correct reset flow for the
> >>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>> where
> >>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>> is no need to take any actions on the RCEC because the
> >>>>>>> firmware is
> >>>>>>> responsible for them.   This is true where APEI [2] is used
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> report
> >>>>>>> the AER
> >>>>>>> errors via a GHES[v2] HEST entry [3] and relevant AER CPER
> >>>>>>> record
> >>>>>>> [4]
> >>>>>>> and Firmware
> >>>>>>> First handling is in use.  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Right, in the case of the RCEC one identifies the RCiEPs by
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> RCiEP
> >>>>>> bitmap as a part of the RCEC Associated Endpoint Extended
> >>>>>> Capabilities.
> >>>>>> This ‘search’ so to speak would make use also of the RCEC
> >>>>>> Associated
> >>>>>> Bus Numbers Register to associate the devices with an RCEC when
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>> on
> >>>>>> the same bus.  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ah. I'm afraid my access to recent specs is a bit limited at the
> >>>>> moment.
> >>>>> I do have a draft 5.0 spec which has that in though so I now see
> >>>>> what
> >>>>> you mean.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Was introduced in Root Complex Event Collector Endpoint
> >>>>> Association
> >>>>> Extended
> >>>>> Capability version 2 in PCIe 5.0 I think.
> >>>>>  
> >>>>
> >>>> Correct.
> >>>>  
> >>>>>>> As there is no current RCEC driver support, it should not be
> >>>>>>> possible
> >>>>>>> to get
> >>>>>>> to this code via any routes other than the one above. Hence
> >>>>>>> appropriate RCEC
> >>>>>>> handling can be added when the RCEC driver support is ready.
> >>>>>>> The error handling is different from a normal PCIe End Point
> >>>>>>> because:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1) There is no downstream port above an RCiEP as these
> >>>>>>> devices sit
> >>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>> a root
> >>>>>>>    bus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2) In general, it makes little sense to reset other devices
> >>>>>>> on on
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>    root bus.  For error handling outside the of the root
> >>>>>>> complex
> >>>>>>> (RC)
> >>>>>>> an AER
> >>>>>>>    error will indicate that all the topology below the
> >>>>>>> physical
> >>>>>>> link,
> >>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>    the error is related to, will need to be reset as they
> >>>>>>> share a
> >>>>>>> common
> >>>>>>>    path to the host.  For an RCiEP there is no such defined
> >>>>>>> shared
> >>>>>>> path
> >>>>>>>    relationship with other elements on the root bus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A new walk function, similar to pci_bus_walk is provided
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> takes
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> pci_dev
> >>>>>>> instead of a bus.  If that dev corresponds to a downstream
> >>>>>>> port it
> >>>>>>> will walk
> >>>>>>> the subordinate bus of that downstream port.  If the dev does
> >>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>> then
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> will call the function on that device alone.   This function
> >>>>>>> allows
> >>>>>>> us
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> avoid adding special cases to the majority of the error
> >>>>>>> handling.  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then in that case the callback could add the additional checks
> >>>>>> specific
> >>>>>> to identifying the associated RCiEPs.  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am afraid I don't follow what you mean here.  Could you give
> >>>>> more
> >>>>> info?  
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, a given RCEC can be associated with multiple RCiEPs.  As a
> >>>> part
> >>>> of
> >>>> the Extended Association Cap it is possible to obtain a bitmap of
> >>>> the
> >>>> RCiEP device ids on the same bus number as the RCEC device itself.
> >>>> (5.0-1.0 sec 7.9.10.2).  With a Cap version of 2h or higher, it is
> >>>> also
> >>>> possible to get an additional range of bus numbers containing
> >>>> RCiEPs
> >>>> also associated with this RCEC.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I’m wondering if this function could be used in which passing 
> >>>> a
> >>>> dev, in this case the RCEC, triggers the call back which makes use
> >>>> of
> >>>> the RCiEP bitmap and associated bus ranges to return all identified
> >>>> devices in use cases such as in AER for finding sources, etc.  
> >>>
> >>> Ah understood.
> >>>
> >>> If we do this we effectively end up with 3 different types of walk
> >>> and
> >>> the meaning of the walk function gets more complex again.
> >>>
> >>> 1) Normal bus walk - we pass the downstream port above a bus to 
> >>> which
> >>> the device is attached and it walks everthing below that point.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Case I care about RCiEP with no visible association with an RCEC
> >>> as
> >>> I don't need to walk devices.  In that case just calls the callbacks
> >>> for
> >>> the actual device.
> >>>
> >>> 3) Pass in RCiEP with RCEC asociated with it (or do a dance at the
> >>> caller
> >>> to pass in the RCEC itself). Need to walk the devices that the RCEC
> >>> is
> >>> handling errors for.  For handling, I'm not all the calls will be
> >>> generally
> >>> applicable to other devices associated with the RCEC as some only
> >>> make
> >>> sense if there is an actual PCIe bus involved and hence we need to
> >>> reset
> >>> other devices on that bus.  For RCEC I don't think there is an
> >>> particular
> >>> reason to assume an AER error reported at one RCiEP will have any
> >>> impact
> >>> on other devices associated with the particular RCEC.
> >>> I've not found anything in the spec addressing this question but
> >>> perhaps
> >>> I've missed something?  
> >>
> >> Correct.  There should be no impact to the RCEC or its associated
> >> RCiEPs which may not happen to reside on the same bus as the 
> >> collector at all.
> >>  
> >>> However, if the RCEC doesn't support multiple error records, you may
> >>> need
> >>> to walk the bus to identify multiple simultaneous issues, very
> >>> carefully
> >>> avoiding (or least minimizing) race conditions.
> >>>  
> >>>> The alternative is to have a separate walk for RCECs that loops
> >>>> through
> >>>> the bitmap / ranges (if supported) triggering the callback for each
> >>>> device found.  
> >>
> >> I’ve been testing the Associated Endpoint Bitmap and Bus Range
> >> handling and using my pciutils patches to help to confirm some of the
> >> association. This overlaps with my CXL work and CXL 1.1 based RCiEPs
> >> are good test cards:
> >>
> >> (Decode via:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20200624223940.240463-1-sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com/
> >>  )
> >>
> >> Test card at 6b:00.0
> >>
> >> Capabilities: [e00 v1] Designated Vendor-Specific: Vendor=1e98 
> >> ID=0000
> >> Rev=0 Len=56: CXL
> >> CXLCap: Cache- IO+ Mem+ Mem HW Init+ HDMCount 1 Viral-
> >> CXLCtl: Cache- IO+ Mem- Cache SF Cov 0 Cache SF Gran 0 Cache Clean-
> >> Viral-
> >> CXLSta: Viral-
> >> Capabilities: [e38 v1] Device Serial Number 30-91-11-78-10-00-00-00
> >>
> >> RCEC assocated to RCiEP at 6b while residing at 6a:
> >>
> >> Capabilities: [160 v2] Root Complex Event Collector Endpoint
> >> Association
> >> RCiEPBitmap: 00000000 [none]
> >> AssociatedBusNumbers: 6b-6b
> >> Kernel driver in use: pcieport
> >>
> >> with dmesg:
> >>
> >> [ 10.502543] pcieport 0000:6a:00.4: AER: enabled with IRQ 34
> >>
> >> The trick is the walk, which is not compact.  Currently working on
> >> error injection to test:
> >>
> >> void pcie_walk_rcec(struct pci_dev *rcec, int (*cb)(struct pci_dev *,
> >> void *),
> >> +                   void *userdata)
> >> +{
> >> +       u32 pos, bitmap, hdr, busn;
> >> +       u8 ver, nextbusn, lastbusn;
> >> +       unsigned int dev, fn, bnr;
> >> +       struct pci_bus *pbus=NULL;
> >> +       struct pci_dev *pdev;
> >> +       int retval;
> >> +
> >> +       pos = pci_find_ext_capability(rcec, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_RCEC);
> >> +       if (!pos)
> >> +               return;
> >> +
> >> +       pci_read_config_dword(rcec, pos + PCI_RCEC_RCIEP_BITMAP,
> >> &bitmap);
> >> +
> >> +       for (dev = 0; dev < 32; dev++) {  
> >
> > for_each_bit_set perhaps?
> >  
> >> +               if (!(bitmap & (1 << dev)))
> >> +                       continue;
> >> +
> >> +               for (fn = 0; fn < 8; fn++) {
> >> +                       pdev =
> >> pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(pci_domain_nr(rcec->bus),
> >> +                                                          rcec->bus-  
> >>> number,  
> >> +                                                          
> >> PCI_DEVFN(de
> >> v, fn));
> >> +                       if (!pdev)
> >> +                               continue;
> >> +
> >> +                       retval = cb(pdev, userdata);
> >> +                       if (retval)
> >> +                               return;
> >> +               }
> >> +       }
> >>
> >> Then continuing in the same function above, I need to also consider 
> >> the
> >> case for the Bus ranges (still wip, not tested):
> >>
> >> +       pci_read_config_dword(rcec, pos, &hdr);
> >> +       ver = PCI_RCEC_EP_CAP_VER(hdr);
> >> +       if (ver < PCI_RCEC_BUSN_REG_VER)
> >> +               return;
> >> +
> >> +       pci_read_config_dword(rcec, pos + PCI_RCEC_BUSN, &busn);
> >> +       nextbusn = PCI_RCEC_BUSN_NEXT(busn);
> >> +       lastbusn = PCI_RCEC_BUSN_LAST(busn);
> >> +
> >> +       if ((nextbusn == 0xff) && (lastbusn == 0x00))
> >> +               return;
> >> +
> >> +       for (bnr = nextbusn; bnr < (lastbusn + 1); bnr++) {
> >> +               pbus = pci_find_bus(pci_domain_nr(rcec->bus), bnr);
> >> +               if (pbus) {
> >> +                       /* find RCiEP devices on the given bus */
> >> +                       for (dev = 0; dev < 32; dev++) {
> >> + etc...
> >> +                       }
> >> +               }
> >> +       }
> >> +}  
> >
> > Makes sense.
> >  
> >>
> >> Currently this lives in aer.c and it's large enough that I wonder if
> >> due to the specifity of the assoicated spec requirments if that 
> >> should
> >> be fine?  
> >
> > Seems fine to me.
> >  
> >>  
> >>> Agreed. We would end up with the same splitting of handling paths
> >>> that
> >>> wasn't liked in my v1 patch.   Perhaps we need  single
> >>> pci_walk_aer_affected
> >>> function with a pile of documentation for what it is actually doing?  
> >>
> >> Perhaps this would be a good start?  I tend to agree.  I can also
> >> submit more of the patches as RFC for further comment.  
> >
> > When you are ready that would be great.  
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> >  
> >>  
> >>>
> >>> Even then we may need to have a parameter to indicate a particular
> >>> callback
> >>> should be restricted to devices that share a 'real bus' or not.  
> >>
> >> In my case 'walk' through the spec options of either just bitmap or 
> >> if
> >> of sufficient version (2h), I walk through the bus ranges, calling 
> >> the
> >> callback at each encounter.  
> >
> > That wasn't what I meant.  When doing some of the actual handling once
> > we have a walk function it will get a bit fiddly.
> > I 'think' we need to first identify which devices associated with the 
> > RCEC
> > have reported an AER error and then we need to only call the callback 
> > for
> > those.  
> 
> Right, I was going to do that decision making in the call back rather 
> than include those details in the walk. That way the call back simply 
> reports what associated devices it finds and makes no assumptions on 
> which device needs to be acted upon.  I’ll experiment with 
> alternatives to placement of identification code.

That may work.  Will need the existing callbacks to be a bit more clever
perhaps. Will be interesting to see what you get to work!

> 
> >
> > In a case with a real bus and EP, the assumption is that the whole bus
> > is going down so you have to issue it to everyone.  
> 
> Correct.
> 
> >  
> >>  
> >>>
> >>> I guess the proof will as ever be in what the code looks like.  
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>  
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. It increasingly feels like we may need to have a go at drawing
> >>> together
> >>> some coherent documentation for the different ways of handling
> >>> AER errors and specifications / assumptions for each.  Would be
> >>> 'interesting'
> >>> to do given I'm fairly sure very few people actually understands all
> >>> the options and
> >>> nasty corner cases!
> >>>
> >>> +CC Lorenzo and James who may also be interested in this topic in
> >>> general.  
> >>
> >> Let's do.  
> >
> > Great.  Whilst we only care about this particular corner for now it 
> > may
> > be worth working out some more comprehensive docs covering standard 
> > topology
> > as well. CXL may bring its own additions, but I'm not sure we actually
> > have a clear description of what 'should' happen on normal PCIe.  
> 
> Agree, the focus is on base or normal PCIe behavior. CXL is one use case 
> with its own exceptions.

:)

> 
> Sean
> 
> >
> > Jonathan
> >  
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Sean
> >>  
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Jonathan
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sean
> >>>>  
> >>>>>>> Open questions:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. Are we better protecting against link reset for an RCiEP
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> here
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>    should we put the check in the link reset functions?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2. If we were to get a stupid firmware record with the
> >>>>>>> relevant
> >>>>>>> reset
> >>>>>>> flag
> >>>>>>>    set to trigger a link reset, what is the correct
> >>>>>>> response?  For
> >>>>>>> now
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>    try to report that we haven't done anything and print a
> >>>>>>> warning.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 3. Naming of pci_walk_below_dev is rather unsatisfying. Any
> >>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>> ideas?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 4. pci_walk_below_dev is perhaps not of general utility.
> >>>>>>> Shall I
> >>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>> it local
> >>>>>>>    in err.c?  If not would a precursor patch for that be
> >>>>>>> preferred?’  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It depends.  Is it intended as a drop in replacement where
> >>>>>> needed
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> pci_walk_bus()? So in that case you are now passing the dev
> >>>>>> structure
> >>>>>> and do the check for subordinate or is it intended as being
> >>>>>> specific
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> say RCEC? With AER, one could either first check for RC_EC type
> >>>>>> before
> >>>>>> using this one.  Or one could just drop in replace (passing the
> >>>>>> dev
> >>>>>> structure instead) and the call back performs the RCEC specific
> >>>>>> checks
> >>>>>> when a device is encountered.  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If it is useful in aer.c that's great.   Just seemed such a weird
> >>>>> beast
> >>>>> I wasn't sure it would be of use anywhere else.
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>>> Testing has been performed via error injection on a QEMU
> >>>>>>> platform
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>> that lets
> >>>>>>> me create a wide range of topologies and report errors at
> >>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>> chosen
> >>>>>>> location.
> >>>>>>> Currently I have no plans to upstream this injection support,
> >>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>> am
> >>>>>>> happy to
> >>>>>>> share if useful to others.  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I’m experimenting with it in my RCEC code in AER and will give
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>> additional feedback.  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Great, thanks
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jonathan
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sean
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>>> [0] ACPI PCI Express Base Specification 4.0 1.3.2.3 Root
> >>>>>>> Complex
> >>>>>>> Integrated
> >>>>>>>     Endpoint Rules.
> >>>>>>> [1] ACPI PCI Express Base Specification 4.0 6.2 Error
> >>>>>>> Signalling
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> Logging
> >>>>>>> [2] ACPI Specification 6.3 Chapter 18 ACPI Platform Error
> >>>>>>> Interface
> >>>>>>> (APEI)
> >>>>>>> [3] ACPI Sepcification 6.3 18.2.3.7 Generic Hardware Error
> >>>>>>> Source
> >>>>>>> [4] UEFI Specification 2.8, N.2.7 PCI Express Error Section
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> Changes since v1:
> >>>>>>> * Separated from the largely unrelated fix so the two can
> >>>>>>> move
> >>>>>>> forwards separately.
> >>>>>>> * Instead of separate path for RCiEP handling use the method
> >>>>>>> suggested
> >>>>>>> by Bjorn
> >>>>>>>   and Sathyanarayanan with an adjusted pci_bus_walk.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks all for reviews of V1.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  drivers/pci/bus.c      | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>  drivers/pci/pcie/err.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
> >>>>>>>  include/linux/pci.h    |  2 ++
> >>>>>>>  3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/bus.c b/drivers/pci/bus.c
> >>>>>>> index 8e40b3e6da77..7cbe1ed2db3d 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/bus.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/bus.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -411,6 +411,34 @@ void pci_walk_bus(struct pci_bus *top,
> >>>>>>> int
> >>>>>>> (*cb)(struct pci_dev *, void *),
> >>>>>>>  }
> >>>>>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_walk_bus);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +/** pci_walk_below_dev - walk devices below (or on) another
> >>>>>>> device
> >>>>>>> + *  @dev      device for which we should walk below,
> >>>>>>> include
> >>>>>>> device
> >>>>>>> when not a port.
> >>>>>>> + *  @cb       callback to be called for each device found
> >>>>>>> + *  @userdata arbitrary pointer to be passed to callback.
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + *  If the device provided is a port,
> >>>>>>> + *  walk the subordinate bus, including any bridged devices
> >>>>>>> + *  on buses under this bus.  Call the provided callback
> >>>>>>> + *  on each device found.
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + *  If the device provided hs no subordinate bus, call the
> >>>>>>> provided
> >>>>>>> + *  callback on the device itself.
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>> +void pci_walk_below_dev(struct pci_dev *dev, int
> >>>>>>> (*cb)(struct
> >>>>>>> pci_dev
> >>>>>>> *, void *),
> >>>>>>> +			void *userdata)
> >>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>> +	struct pci_bus *bus;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +	if (dev->subordinate) {
> >>>>>>> +		bus = dev->subordinate;
> >>>>>>> +		pci_walk_bus(bus, cb, userdata);
> >>>>>>> +	} else {
> >>>>>>> +		cb(dev, userdata);
> >>>>>>> +	}
> >>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_walk_below_dev);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>  struct pci_bus *pci_bus_get(struct pci_bus *bus)
> >>>>>>>  {
> >>>>>>>  	if (bus)
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c
> >>>>>>> index 14bb8f54723e..fa08b1cc3d96 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -151,33 +151,39 @@ pci_ers_result_t
> >>>>>>> pcie_do_recovery(struct
> >>>>>>> pci_dev
> >>>>>>> *dev,
> >>>>>>>  			pci_ers_result_t (*reset_link)(struct
> >>>>>>> pci_dev *pdev))
> >>>>>>>  {
> >>>>>>>  	pci_ers_result_t status = PCI_ERS_RESULT_CAN_RECOVER;
> >>>>>>> -	struct pci_bus *bus;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  	/*
> >>>>>>>  	 * Error recovery runs on all subordinates of the
> >>>>>>> first
> >>>>>>> downstream
> >>>>>>> port.
> >>>>>>>  	 * If the downstream port detected the error, it is
> >>>>>>> cleared at
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> end.
> >>>>>>> +	 * For RCiEPs we should reset just the RCiEP itself.
> >>>>>>>  	 */
> >>>>>>>  	if (!(pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ||
> >>>>>>> -	      pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM))
> >>>>>>> +	      pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM ||
> >>>>>>> +	      pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END))
> >>>>>>>  		dev = dev->bus->self;
> >>>>>>> -	bus = dev->subordinate;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  	pci_dbg(dev, "broadcast error_detected message\n");
> >>>>>>>  	if (state == pci_channel_io_frozen) {
> >>>>>>> -		pci_walk_bus(bus, report_frozen_detected,
> >>>>>>> &status);
> >>>>>>> +		pci_walk_below_dev(dev, report_frozen_detected,
> >>>>>>> &status);
> >>>>>>> +		if (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END)
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> +			pci_warn(dev, "link reset not possible
> >>>>>>> for RCiEP\n");
> >>>>>>> +			status = PCI_ERS_RESULT_NONE;
> >>>>>>> +			goto failed;
> >>>>>>> +		}
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>  		status = reset_link(dev);
> >>>>>>>  		if (status != PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED) {
> >>>>>>>  			pci_warn(dev, "link reset failed\n");
> >>>>>>>  			goto failed;
> >>>>>>>  		}
> >>>>>>>  	} else {
> >>>>>>> -		pci_walk_bus(bus, report_normal_detected,
> >>>>>>> &status);
> >>>>>>> +		pci_walk_below_dev(dev, report_normal_detected,
> >>>>>>> &status);
> >>>>>>>  	}
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  	if (status == PCI_ERS_RESULT_CAN_RECOVER) {
> >>>>>>>  		status = PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED;
> >>>>>>>  		pci_dbg(dev, "broadcast mmio_enabled
> >>>>>>> message\n");
> >>>>>>> -		pci_walk_bus(bus, report_mmio_enabled,
> >>>>>>> &status);
> >>>>>>> +		pci_walk_below_dev(dev, report_mmio_enabled,
> >>>>>>> &status);
> >>>>>>>  	}
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  	if (status == PCI_ERS_RESULT_NEED_RESET) {
> >>>>>>> @@ -188,17 +194,20 @@ pci_ers_result_t
> >>>>>>> pcie_do_recovery(struct
> >>>>>>> pci_dev
> >>>>>>> *dev,
> >>>>>>>  		 */
> >>>>>>>  		status = PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED;
> >>>>>>>  		pci_dbg(dev, "broadcast slot_reset message\n");
> >>>>>>> -		pci_walk_bus(bus, report_slot_reset, &status);
> >>>>>>> +		pci_walk_below_dev(dev, report_slot_reset,
> >>>>>>> &status);
> >>>>>>>  	}
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  	if (status != PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED)
> >>>>>>>  		goto failed;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  	pci_dbg(dev, "broadcast resume message\n");
> >>>>>>> -	pci_walk_bus(bus, report_resume, &status);
> >>>>>>> +	pci_walk_below_dev(dev, report_resume, &status);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -	pci_aer_clear_device_status(dev);
> >>>>>>> -	pci_aer_clear_nonfatal_status(dev);
> >>>>>>> +	if ((pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ||
> >>>>>>> +	     pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM)) {
> >>>>>>> +		pci_aer_clear_device_status(dev);
> >>>>>>> +		pci_aer_clear_nonfatal_status(dev);
> >>>>>>> +	}
> >>>>>>>  	pci_info(dev, "device recovery successful\n");
> >>>>>>>  	return status;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
> >>>>>>> index c79d83304e52..538bf0a76d33 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> >>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> >>>>>>> @@ -1411,6 +1411,8 @@ int pci_scan_bridge(struct pci_bus
> >>>>>>> *bus,
> >>>>>>> struct
> >>>>>>> pci_dev *dev, int max,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  void pci_walk_bus(struct pci_bus *top, int (*cb)(struct
> >>>>>>> pci_dev
> >>>>>>> *,
> >>>>>>> void *),
> >>>>>>>  		  void *userdata);
> >>>>>>> +void pci_walk_below_dev(struct pci_dev *dev, int
> >>>>>>> (*cb)(struct
> >>>>>>> pci_dev
> >>>>>>> *, void *),
> >>>>>>> +			void *userdata);
> >>>>>>>  int pci_cfg_space_size(struct pci_dev *dev);
> >>>>>>>  unsigned char pci_bus_max_busnr(struct pci_bus *bus);
> >>>>>>>  void pci_setup_bridge(struct pci_bus *bus);
> >>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>> 2.19.1  
> >>  



  reply index

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-22 11:44 Jonathan Cameron
2020-06-26 16:18 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-06-26 18:24   ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-06-26 16:29 ` Sean V Kelley
2020-06-26 18:41   ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-07-02 18:06     ` Sean V Kelley
2020-07-03  8:23       ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-07-07 16:56         ` Sean V Kelley
2020-07-07 18:08           ` Sean V Kelley
2020-07-07 23:40           ` Sean V Kelley
2020-07-08 15:39           ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-07-08 16:01             ` Sean V Kelley
2020-07-08 16:32               ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2020-07-24 17:29                 ` Sean V Kelley

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=20200708173213.00001852@Huawei.com \
    --to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.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

Linux-ACPI Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/0 linux-acpi/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-acpi linux-acpi/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi \
		linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-acpi

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-acpi


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git