[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cdfacacf-b39e-a565-f5ae-f59d1c2ff168@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:25:09 -0800
From: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
To: "Chalamarla, Tirumalesh" <Tirumalesh.Chalamarla@...ium.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Jaggi, Manish" <Manish.Jaggi@...ium.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"Richter, Robert" <Robert.Richter@...ium.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Add cavium acs pci quirk
On 02/27/2017 11:13 AM, Chalamarla, Tirumalesh wrote:
>
>
> On 2/27/17, 11:02 AM, "David Daney" <ddaney.cavm@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/14/2017 07:07 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 09:44:57PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 01:33:58 +0530
> >> Manish Jaggi <mjaggi@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Cavium devices matching this quirk do not perform
> >>> peer-to-peer with other functions, allowing masking out
> >>> these bits as if they were unimplemented in the ACS capability.
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@...ium.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Manish Jaggi <mjaggi@...iumnetworks.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/pci/quirks.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> >>> index 7e32730..a300fa6 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> >>> @@ -3814,6 +3814,19 @@ static int pci_quirk_amd_sb_acs(struct pci_dev *dev, u16 acs_flags)
> >>> #endif
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +static int pci_quirk_cavium_acs(struct pci_dev *dev, u16 acs_flags)
> >>> +{
Perhaps add a check here for dev->device and/or dev->subsystem_device to
see if we need the workaround. There may be many that match, so ...
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Cavium devices matching this quirk do not perform
> >>> + * peer-to-peer with other functions, allowing masking out
> >>> + * these bits as if they were unimplemented in the ACS capability.
> >>> + */
> >>> + acs_flags &= ~(PCI_ACS_SV | PCI_ACS_TB | PCI_ACS_RR |
> >>> + PCI_ACS_CR | PCI_ACS_UF | PCI_ACS_DT);
> >>> +
> >>> + return acs_flags ? 0 : 1;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> /*
> >>> * Many Intel PCH root ports do provide ACS-like features to disable peer
> >>> * transactions and validate bus numbers in requests, but do not provide an
> >>> @@ -3966,6 +3979,8 @@ static const struct pci_dev_acs_enabled {
> >>> { PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_ANY_ID, pci_quirk_intel_pch_acs },
> >>> { 0x19a2, 0x710, pci_quirk_mf_endpoint_acs }, /* Emulex BE3-R */
> >>> { 0x10df, 0x720, pci_quirk_mf_endpoint_acs }, /* Emulex Skyhawk-R */
> >>> + /* Cavium ThunderX */
> >>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_CAVIUM, PCI_ANY_ID, pci_quirk_cavium_acs },
.. Leaving PCI_ANY_ID here may keep the table more manageable.
> >>> { 0 }
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>
> >> Apologies for not catching this, but what sort of crystal ball do you
> >> have that can predict not only current devices, but future devices will
> >> not support peer-to-peer features? Is there an internal design
> >> guidelines reference specification for Cavium that we can realistically
> >> expect this to remain consistent, or is this just an attempt to never
> >> think about ACS again at the customer's peril? What about the existing
> >> non-ThunderX products with Cavium vendor ID, does this really apply to
> >> those? I would strongly suggest taking the device ID into account.
> >> See examples like the pci_quirk_intel_pch_acs quirk where the initial
> >> filter is PCI_ANY_ID, but specific device types and ranges of device
> >> IDs are identified by the function for evaluation. This seems reckless
> >> to me and I'd advise that it be reverted. Thanks,
> >
> > I'd be happy to revert this, but it would be easier if somebody sent a
> > patch and a changelog.
> >
>
> I agree that it should be reverted.
>
> I was hoping that Manish or Tirumalesh would fix this properly by only
> activating the quirk on the faulty hardware, but such a fix has never
> appeared.
>
> This was supposed to be true for all Cavium chips. We got such answer from Hardware architects, but it might change in the future.
> I will be happy to replace this with DEVICE_ID.
> Manish,
> Could you please take this u, if not I will send a patch to do this.
I think several device ids or subsystem_device may be involved.
See above.
>
> Tirumalesh.
>
> David Daney
>
>
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists