From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE11C43331 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:24:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 250B020787 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:24:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="xAvsPRmx" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727898AbgDCKYH (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2020 06:24:07 -0400 Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:55234 "EHLO userp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727774AbgDCKYH (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Apr 2020 06:24:07 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 033AMomI006005; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:23:32 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=i1ggMKgfprzTBmjTkkEMaaj/fyNdcd8zJqS5dJmvgJw=; b=xAvsPRmx6gh2+EBdOl3phuDMaeJVrKvTjp6xEuk3T0W/akHIREcWwUO2qd/9GBhYbnK5 2EFUQ3ejOxz7Kx0pE0i/5o2PmxnptZ0ieBpf8ZEiopScTh80lrLHV9ZWgpg/SKIY94nw aH5gSrCFzm5dPel69pBlBxCI2A69Vhjvj0Kca8H+EhisfwdePicoR9G7ERosqx0w5Z3W zZ69uJCW7BlUXSxh71GsKZrJwKNcal1GZirX+BWZZr74ABPYJ4g0L/ccPfbVLQ6m1no0 qLyqCjytjwLppX5hCxgmQrV8JSaH3At7sHXk3eL3DaViOBijD+rE0Fa7QzTaJ6vhqNre Xg== Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 303aqj0r6t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 03 Apr 2020 10:23:32 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 033ANAt4064259; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:23:31 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 304sjscrgu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 03 Apr 2020 10:23:31 +0000 Received: from abhmp0013.oracle.com (abhmp0013.oracle.com [141.146.116.19]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 033ANOPg014410; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:23:24 GMT Received: from kadam (/41.57.98.10) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 03:23:24 -0700 Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 13:23:13 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Bjorn Helgaas , kbuild@lists.01.org Cc: Shiju Jose , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, james.morse@arm.com, tony.luck@intel.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, zhangliguang@linux.alibaba.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linuxarm@huawei.com, jonathan.cameron@huawei.com, tanxiaofei@huawei.com, yangyicong@hisilicon.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] PCI: HIP: Add handling of HiSilicon HIP PCIe controller errors Message-ID: <20200403102313.GD2066@kadam> References: <24330bd8-afaa-d7ac-594c-f9fda4242400@huawei.com> <20200325173639.GA484@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200325173639.GA484@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9579 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004030090 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9579 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1011 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004030090 Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org I've added the kbuild list because I think you have a point. On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:36:39PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > [+cc Dan] > Shiju had already added me to the CC list... > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:55:18PM +0000, Shiju Jose wrote: > > The HiSilicon HIP PCIe controller is capable of handling errors > > on root port and perform port reset separately at each root port. > > > > This patch add error handling driver for HIP PCIe controller to log > > and report recoverable errors. Perform root port reset and restore > > link status after the recovery. > > > > Following are some of the PCIe controller's recoverable errors > > 1. completion transmission timeout error. > > 2. CRS retry counter over the threshold error. > > 3. ECC 2 bit errors > > 4. AXI bresponse/rresponse errors etc. > > > > Also fix the following Smatch warning: > > warn: should '((((1))) << (9 + i))' be a 64 bit type? > > if (err->val_bits & BIT(HISI_PCIE_LOCAL_VALID_ERR_MISC + i)) > > ^^^ This should be BIT_ULL() because it goes up to 9 + 32. > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot > > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter > > I'm glad you did this fix, and thanks for acknowledging Dan, but I > don't think it's necessary to mention it in the commit log here > because it won't really be useful in the future. It's only relevant > when comparing the unmerged versions of this series, e.g., v4 compared > to v3. It's the kbuild template which suggests adding the Reported-by tags but you're right that it's not really appropriate for patches that haven't been merged yet. I wish there were a correct tag. I just saw yesterday where a maintainer insisted that someone add a Suggested-by tag and I don't think that's appropriate either. regards, dan carpenter