[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190819085620.GM19908@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:56:20 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...nel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Frederick Lawler <fred@...dlawl.com>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PCI: pciehp: Prevent deadlock on disconnect
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:28:13PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 8/12/2019 10:31 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > +int pciehp_card_present_or_link_active(struct controller *ctrl)
> > {
> > - return pciehp_card_present(ctrl) || pciehp_check_link_active(ctrl);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = pciehp_card_present(ctrl);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + return pciehp_check_link_active(ctrl);
>
> The semantics of this function changed here. Before it was checking for
> either presence detect bit or link active bit. Now, it is looking to
> have both set.
Hmm, maybe I haven't got enough coffee yet but I'm not sure I understand :)
The intention was that the above two are equivalent with the exception
of handling the possible error.
> There are PCI controllers that won't report presence detect correctly,
> but still report link active.
If that's the case then pciehp_card_present() returns false so we call
pciehp_check_link_active() which should work with those controllers.
What I'm missing here?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists