From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org>
To: Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com, mr.nuke.me@gmail.com, keith.busch@intel.com
Cc: baicar.tyler@gmail.com, sbobroff@linux.ibm.com,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shyam.Iyer@dell.com,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lukas@wunner.de, oohall@gmail.com,
Austin.Bolen@dell.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, lenb@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns AER
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:33:52 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <84013a8a-287d-d700-6710-91cc35f507c8@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bb575cfdcd0a4c50b489fb16eccfbff2@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
On 11/19/2018 3:16 PM, Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com wrote:
> On 11/19/2018 01:32 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> ACPI 6.2:
>>
>> 18.3.2.4 PCI Express Root Port AER Structure
>>
>> Flags:
>>
>> Bit [0] - FIRMWARE_FIRST: If set, this bit indicates to the OSPM that system
>> firmware will handle errors from this source first.
>> Bit [1] - GLOBAL: If set, indicates that the settings contained in this
>> structure apply globally to all PCI Express Devices.
>> All other bits must be set to zero.
>>
>> It doesn't say shall, may or might. It says will.
>
> It says "system firmware will handle errors". It does not say "system
> firmware owns AER registers". In absence on any descriptor text on the
> meaning of these tables, this really looks to me like it should be
> interpreted as a descriptor of APEI error sources, not a mutex on who
> writes to certain bits-- AER in this case.
True. I was trying to get it out in a rush. I omitted words.
However; table assumes governance about for which entities firmware first
should be enabled. There is no cross reference to _OSC or permission
negotiation like _OST.
>
> I don't think that is contradictory or inconsistent.
> I also wasn't able to find any reference to HEST in UEFI 2.7, only in
> ACPI spec.
You are right. It was a confusion on my side. The right place to look is
ACPI specification. I was involved in this a couple of years ago. Some pieces
were in UEFI spec. Other pieces were in ACPI. I guess they got unified
now.
>
>> I think It depends on your PCI topology.
>>
>> For other topologies with multiple PCI root complexes, I can see this being
>> used per root complex flag to indicate which root complex needs firmware first
>> and which one doesn't.
>
> _OSC is per root bus, so it's already granular enough, right? Why would
> it depend on PCI topology?
>
I was speculating. I don't have the full background on this. Need to consult
the spec developers.
>> As I said in my previous email, the right place to talk about this is UEFI
>> forum.
>
> The way I would present the problem to he spec writers is that, although
> the spec appears to be consistent, we've seen firmware vendors that made
> the wrong assumptions about HEST/_OSC. Instead of describing AER
> ownership with _OSC, they attempted to do it with HEST. So we should add
> an implementation note, or clarification about this.
I agree.
>
> Alex
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-19 20:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-15 23:16 [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns AER Alexandru Gagniuc
2018-11-15 23:16 ` [PATCH 1/2] PCI/AER: Do not use APEI/HEST to disable AER services globally Alexandru Gagniuc
2018-11-15 23:16 ` [PATCH 2/2] PCI/AER: Determine AER ownership based on _OSC instead of HEST Alexandru Gagniuc
2018-11-15 23:43 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-16 1:49 ` [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns AER Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 16:53 ` Tyler Baicar
2018-11-19 16:53 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-19 17:32 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 17:36 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-19 17:42 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 17:41 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-19 17:56 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 18:10 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-19 18:24 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 19:11 ` Alex G.
2018-11-19 19:32 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-19 20:16 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-19 20:33 ` Sinan Kaya [this message]
2018-11-19 23:49 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-20 1:54 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-20 20:44 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-20 21:02 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-20 21:42 ` Keith Busch
2018-11-20 22:28 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-20 22:35 ` Alex G.
2018-11-20 21:46 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-20 22:08 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-20 22:36 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-27 18:22 ` Alex_Gagniuc
2018-11-27 18:32 ` Sinan Kaya
2018-11-27 18:46 ` Tyler Baicar
2018-11-16 12:37 ` David Laight
2019-03-05 23:16 ` Bjorn Helgaas
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=84013a8a-287d-d700-6710-91cc35f507c8@kernel.org \
--to=okaya@kernel.org \
--cc=Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com \
--cc=Austin.Bolen@dell.com \
--cc=Shyam.Iyer@dell.com \
--cc=baicar.tyler@gmail.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=mr.nuke.me@gmail.com \
--cc=oohall@gmail.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sbobroff@linux.ibm.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).