[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191021134729.GL2819@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:47:29 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Stuart Hayes <stuart.w.hayes@...il.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Austin Bolen <austin_bolen@...l.com>, keith.busch@...el.com,
Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Sinan Kaya <okaya@...nel.org>,
Oza Pawandeep <poza@...eaurora.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lukas@...ner.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] PCI: pciehp: Add dmi table for in-band presence
disabled
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 03:32:56PM -0400, Stuart Hayes wrote:
> Some systems have in-band presence detection disabled for hot-plug PCI
> slots, but do not report this in the slot capabilities 2 (SLTCAP2) register.
> On these systems, presence detect can become active well after the link is
> reported to be active, which can cause the slots to be disabled after a
> device is connected.
>
> Add a dmi table to flag these systems as having in-band presence disabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stuart Hayes <stuart.w.hayes@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c
> index 02eb811a014f..4d377a2a62ce 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>
> #define dev_fmt(fmt) "pciehp: " fmt
>
> +#include <linux/dmi.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #include <linux/jiffies.h>
> @@ -26,6 +27,16 @@
> #include "../pci.h"
> #include "pciehp.h"
>
> +static const struct dmi_system_id inband_presence_disabled_dmi_table[] = {
> + {
> + .ident = "Dell System",
> + .matches = {
> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_OEM_STRING, "Dell System"),
Sorry if this has been discussed previously already but isn't this going
to apply on all Dell systems, not just the affected ones? Is this the
intention?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists