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=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 3E044C10F13 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:15:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC632077C for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:15:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nvidia.com header.i=@nvidia.com header.b="Hl2FL+Kg" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728155AbfDPNPZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:15:25 -0400 Received: from hqemgate15.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.64]:2339 "EHLO hqemgate15.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727030AbfDPNPZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:15:25 -0400 Received: from hqpgpgate101.nvidia.com (Not Verified[216.228.121.13]) by hqemgate15.nvidia.com (using TLS: TLSv1.2, DES-CBC3-SHA) id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 06:15:03 -0700 Received: from hqmail.nvidia.com ([172.20.161.6]) by hqpgpgate101.nvidia.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 16 Apr 2019 06:15:23 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqpgpgate101.nvidia.com on Tue, 16 Apr 2019 06:15:23 -0700 Received: from [10.24.45.163] (10.124.1.5) by HQMAIL101.nvidia.com (172.20.187.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:15:17 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 01/16] PCI: Add #defines for PCIe spec r4.0 features To: Thierry Reding CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <1554407683-31580-1-git-send-email-vidyas@nvidia.com> <1554407683-31580-2-git-send-email-vidyas@nvidia.com> <20190411101353.GE4633@ulmo> From: Vidya Sagar X-Nvconfidentiality: public Message-ID: <4f672035-262b-1e53-2718-8c0c5612b3f3@nvidia.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:45:14 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190411101353.GE4633@ulmo> X-Originating-IP: [10.124.1.5] X-ClientProxiedBy: HQMAIL104.nvidia.com (172.18.146.11) To HQMAIL101.nvidia.com (172.20.187.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nvidia.com; s=n1; t=1555420503; bh=t0GOs2azBJjgZp+xHC5CZdwgEzN9x3n9cfJyNGjL2B8=; h=X-PGP-Universal:Subject:To:CC:References:From:X-Nvconfidentiality: Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP:X-ClientProxiedBy:Content-Type:Content-Language: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Hl2FL+KgDXcmLsCOPR2ZFCWSBKk6S4/asPCeICE12zyUPJA7g3kmBg8GsNWh0nHz1 Xnc7JBmLbfoMn+srWMDXdLMCq5QBvJGkKVlKq7WJ/q89t6MuKfnObbxTW7UzHW9DWl lCLgXbjY7Dp9pn6X0qivl02m+xn1PuvhqaDsp5hauFR98xZEOpsxkO43ttB8PZSmZZ TVWHjhWrHyE/3qZPeUf1vTmkBgDUCmcbjK0LHbCxVewY8lnRhg3EiSSImO/S7OkJDF rzBkr+jkUAA7CXA4nFdQyMeYGJDEf1JM+9jQqg7bIUpWAKxJ+hYIE7zKFygGavXfJj 4scgZjDZ8kP/w== Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On 4/11/2019 3:43 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 01:24:28AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: >> Add #defines for the Data Link Feature and Physical Layer 16.0 GT/s >> features. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar >> --- >> Changes from [v1]: >> * None >> >> include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h b/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h >> index 5c98133f2c94..3e01b55d548d 100644 >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h >> @@ -705,7 +705,9 @@ >> #define PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_DPC 0x1D /* Downstream Port Containment */ >> #define PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS 0x1E /* L1 PM Substates */ >> #define PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_PTM 0x1F /* Precision Time Measurement */ >> -#define PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_MAX PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_PTM >> +#define PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_DLF 0x25 /* Data Link Feature */ >> +#define PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_PL 0x26 /* Physical Layer 16.0 GT/s */ >> +#define PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_MAX PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_PL >> >> #define PCI_EXT_CAP_DSN_SIZEOF 12 >> #define PCI_EXT_CAP_MCAST_ENDPOINT_SIZEOF 40 >> @@ -1045,4 +1047,22 @@ >> #define PCI_L1SS_CTL1_LTR_L12_TH_SCALE 0xe0000000 /* LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD_Scale */ >> #define PCI_L1SS_CTL2 0x0c /* Control 2 Register */ >> >> +/* Data Link Feature */ >> +#define PCI_DLF_CAP 0x04 /* Capabilities Register */ >> +#define PCI_DLF_LOCAL_DLF_SUP_MASK 0x007fffff /* Local Data Link Feature Supported */ >> +#define PCI_DLF_EXCHANGE_ENABLE 0x80000000 /* Data Link Feature Exchange Enable */ >> +#define PCI_DLF_STS 0x08 /* Status Register */ >> +#define PCI_DLF_REMOTE_DLF_SUP_MASK 0x007fffff /* Remote Data Link Feature Supported */ >> +#define PCI_DLF_REMOTE_DLF_SUP_VALID 0x80000000 /* Remote Data Link Feature Support Valid */ >> + >> +/* Physical Layer 16.0 GT/s */ >> +#define PCI_PL_16GT_CAP 0x04 /* Capabilities Register */ >> +#define PCI_PL_16GT_CTRL 0x08 /* Control Register */ >> +#define PCI_PL_16GT_STS 0x0c /* Status Register */ >> +#define PCI_PL_16GT_LDPM_STS 0x10 /* Local Data Parity Mismatch Status Register */ >> +#define PCI_PL_16GT_FRDPM_STS 0x14 /* First Retimer Data Parity Mismatch Status Register */ >> +#define PCI_PL_16GT_SRDPM_STS 0x18 /* Second Retimer Data Parity Mismatch Status Register */ >> +#define PCI_PL_16GT_RSVD 0x1C /* Reserved */ >> +#define PCI_PL_16GT_LE_CTRL 0x20 /* Lane Equalization Control Register */ > > This looks correct comparing to the specification. However, this leaves > out some definitions, so I'm wondering if perhaps this should include > all field definitions. There are also extended capabilities between the > current maximum 0x1F and 0x25. Perhaps those should be added as well. I > guess this could always be done as a follow-up. > > Perhaps it'd be better to change the subject to more accurately reflect > that you're only adding a couple of PCIe 4.0 features. I'll change subject accordingly. > > Other than that: > > Reviewed-by: Thierry Reding >