[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210926220537.GA591345@bhelgaas>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 17:05:37 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <refactormyself@...il.com>
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kw@...ux.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] PCI/ASPM: Remove struct pcie_link_state.parent
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:52:03AM +0200, Saheed O. Bolarinwa wrote:
> From: "Bolarinwa O. Saheed" <refactormyself@...il.com>
>
> Information cached in struct pcie_link_state.parent is accessible
> via struct pci_dev.
>
> This patch:
> - removes *parent* from the *struct pcie_link_state*
> - adjusts all references to it to access the information directly
>
> Signed-off-by: Bolarinwa O. Saheed <refactormyself@...il.com>
> ---
> OPINION: the checkpatch.pl scring warns on this line:
> `BUG_ON(root->pdev->bus->parent->self);`
> however, I think if a root device reports a parent, that is serious!
Do you mean this warning?
WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
#967: FILE: drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c:967:
+ struct pcie_link_state *link;
+ BUG_ON(root->pdev->bus->parent->self);
That's just complaining about a blank line, so no big deal. You could
resolve that by adding the blank line in this patch.
The fact that we use BUG_ON() at all *is* a real problem. See the
comments at the BUG() definition. We should rework this so that
condition is either impossible and we can just remove the BUG_ON(), or
we can deal with it gracefully. But this would be material for a
different patch.
> drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> index 013a47f587ce..48b83048aa30 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> @@ -50,7 +50,6 @@ struct pcie_link_state {
> struct pci_dev *pdev; /* Upstream component of the Link */
> struct pci_dev *downstream; /* Downstream component, function 0 */
> struct pcie_link_state *root; /* pointer to the root port link */
> - struct pcie_link_state *parent; /* pointer to the parent Link state */
> struct list_head sibling; /* node in link_list */
>
> /* ASPM state */
> @@ -379,6 +378,7 @@ static void encode_l12_threshold(u32 threshold_us, u32 *scale, u32 *value)
> static void pcie_aspm_check_latency(struct pci_dev *endpoint)
> {
> u32 latency, l1_switch_latency = 0;
> + struct pci_dev *parent;
> struct aspm_latency *acceptable;
> struct pcie_link_state *link;
>
> @@ -419,7 +419,8 @@ static void pcie_aspm_check_latency(struct pci_dev *endpoint)
> link->aspm_capable &= ~ASPM_STATE_L1;
> l1_switch_latency += 1000;
>
> - link = link->parent;
> + parent = link->pdev->bus->parent->self;
> + link = !parent ? NULL : parent->link_state;
I love the direction of this patch, but this chain of pointers
(link->pdev->bus->parent->self) is a little over the top and is
repeated several times here.
Can we simplify it a bit by making a helper function? It's similar
but not quite the same as pci_upstream_bridge().
And maybe reverse the condition to avoid the negation?
link = parent ? parent->link_state : NULL;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -793,9 +794,11 @@ static void pcie_config_aspm_link(struct pcie_link_state *link, u32 state)
>
> static void pcie_config_aspm_path(struct pcie_link_state *link)
> {
> + struct pci_dev *parent;
> while (link) {
> pcie_config_aspm_link(link, policy_to_aspm_state(link));
> - link = link->parent;
> + parent = link->pdev->bus->parent->self;
> + link = !parent ? NULL : parent->link_state;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -872,8 +875,7 @@ static struct pcie_link_state *alloc_pcie_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> return NULL;
> }
>
> - link->parent = parent;
> - link->root = link->parent->root;
> + link->root = parent->root;
> }
>
> list_add(&link->sibling, &link_list);
> @@ -962,7 +964,7 @@ void pcie_aspm_init_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> static void pcie_update_aspm_capable(struct pcie_link_state *root)
> {
> struct pcie_link_state *link;
> - BUG_ON(root->parent);
> + BUG_ON(root->pdev->bus->parent->self);
> list_for_each_entry(link, &link_list, sibling) {
> if (link->root != root)
> continue;
> @@ -985,6 +987,7 @@ static void pcie_update_aspm_capable(struct pcie_link_state *root)
> /* @pdev: the endpoint device */
> void pcie_aspm_exit_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> {
> + struct pci_dev *parent_dev;
> struct pci_dev *parent = pdev->bus->self;
> struct pcie_link_state *link, *root, *parent_link;
>
> @@ -1002,7 +1005,8 @@ void pcie_aspm_exit_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>
> link = parent->link_state;
> root = link->root;
> - parent_link = link->parent;
> + parent_dev = link->pdev->bus->parent->self;
> + parent_link = !parent_dev ? NULL : parent_dev->link_state;
>
> /* All functions are removed, so just disable ASPM for the link */
> pcie_config_aspm_link(link, 0);
> --
> 2.20.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists