Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2016 10:57:29 +0100
From:   Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pci: Don't set RCB bit in LNKCTL if the upstream
 bridge hasn't

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:11:58PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:35:52PM -0600, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > The Read Completion Boundary (RCB) bit must only be set on a device or
> > endpoint if it is set on the root complex.
> 
> I propose the following slightly modified patch.  The interesting
> difference is that your patch only touches the _HPX "OR" mask, so it
> refrains from *setting* RCB in some cases, but it never actually
> *clears* it.  The only time we clear RCB is when the _HPX "AND" mask
> has RCB == 0.
> 
> My intent below is that we completely ignore the _HPX RCB bits, and we
> set an Endpoint's RCB if and only if the Root Port's RCB is set.
> 
> I made an ugly ASCII table to think about the cases:
> 
>       Root   EP    _HPX  _HPX     Final Endpoint RCB state
>       Port  (init)  AND   OR     (curr)  (yours)  (mine)
>   0)   0     0      0    0          0       0       0
>   1)   0     0      0    1          1       0       0
>   2)   0     0      1    0          0       0       0
>   3)   0     0      1    1          1       0       0
>   4)   0     1      0    0          0       0       0
>   5)   0     1      0    1          1       0       0
>   6)   0     1      1    0          1       1       0
>   7)   0     1      1    1          1       1       0
>   8)   1     0      0    0          0       0       1
>   9)   1     0      0    1          1       1       1
>   A)   1     0      1    0          0       0       1
>   B)   1     0      1    1          1       1       1
>   C)   1     1      0    0          0       0       1
>   D)   1     1      0    1          1       1       1
>   E)   1     1      1    0          1       1       1
>   F)   1     1      1    1          1       1       1
> 
> Cases 0-7 should all result in the Endpoint RCB being zero because the
> Root Port RCB is zero.  Case 1 is the bug you're fixing.  Cases 3 & 5
> are similar hypothetical bugs your patch also fixes.
> 
> Cases 6 & 7, where firmware left the Endpoint RCB set and _HPX didn't
> tell us to clear it, are hypothetical firmware bugs that your patch
> wouldn't fix.
> 
> In cases 8, A, and C, we currently leave the Endpoint RCB cleared,
> either because firmware left it clear and _HPX didn't tell us to set
> it (8 and A), or because firmware set it but _HPX told us to clear it
> (C).
> 
> One could argue that 8, A, and C should stay as they currently are, as
> a way for _HPX to work around hardware bugs, e.g., a Root Port that
> advertises a 128-byte RCB but doesn't actually support it.  I didn't
> bother with that and set the Endpoint's RCB to 128 in all cases when
> the Root Port claims to support it.
> 
> It'd be great if you could test this and comment.

I've lost access to the machines, but I'll try to delegate it to someone who
has access.

> 
> If you get a chance, collect the /proc/iomem contents, too.  That's
> not for this bug; it's because I'm curious about the
> 
>   ERST: Can not request [mem 0xb928b000-0xb928cbff] for ERST
>   
> problem in your dmesg log.

I'll ask for this as well.

Byte,
	Johannes
-- 
Johannes Thumshirn                                          Storage
jthumshirn@...e.de                                +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850

Powered by blists - more mailing lists