[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1828edee07fa483d9600aeb5b9b69456@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:57:37 +0000
From: <Alex_Gagniuc@...lteam.com>
To: <helgaas@...nel.org>, <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>
Cc: <Austin.Bolen@...l.com>, <keith.busch@...el.com>,
<Shyam.Iyer@...l.com>, <lukas@...ner.de>,
<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
<rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, <poza@...eaurora.org>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: pciehp: Report degraded links via link bandwidth
notification
On 11/29/2018 11:36 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 06:08:24PM -0600, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>> A warning is generated when a PCIe device is probed with a degraded
>> link, but there was no similar mechanism to warn when the link becomes
>> degraded after probing. The Link Bandwidth Notification provides this
>> mechanism.
>>
>> Use the link bandwidth notification interrupt to detect bandwidth
>> changes, and rescan the bandwidth, looking for the weakest point. This
>> is the same logic used in probe().
>
> I like the concept of this. What I don't like is the fact that it's
> tied to pciehp, since I don't think the concept of Link Bandwidth
> Notification is related to hotplug. So I think we'll only notice this
> for ports that support hotplug. Maybe it's worth doing it this way
> anyway, even if it could be generalized in the future?
That makes sense. At first, I thought that BW notification was tied to
hotplug, but our PCIe spec writer disagreed with that assertion. I'm
just not sure where to handle the interrupt otherwise.
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists