linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: "Kuppuswamy,
	Sathyanarayanan"  <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
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 17:25:00 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201128232500.GA929114@bjorn-Precision-5520> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5646ac56-3b4a-d060-18ab-28722c337d00@linux.intel.com>

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().

  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-28 23:25 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 [this message]
2020-11-29  4:32               ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
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=20201128232500.GA929114@bjorn-Precision-5520 \
    --to=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=knsathya@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=olof@lixom.net \
    --cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@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
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).