Message-ID: <694bb355-3b5e-9801-3772-ff784b49a603@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 17:25:33 -0500
From:   Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, nsaenz@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] PCI: brcmstb: Add ACPI config space quirk

Hi,

On 10/5/21 2:43 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Tuesday 05 October 2021 10:57:18 Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/5/21 10:32 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 02:15:55AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>>>> Additionally, some basic bus/device filtering exist to avoid sending
>>>> config transactions to invalid devices on the RP's primary or
>>>> secondary bus. A basic link check is also made to assure that
>>>> something is operational on the secondary side before probing the
>>>> remainder of the config space. If either of these constraints are
>>>> violated and a config operation is lost in the ether because an EP
>>>> doesn't respond an unrecoverable SERROR is raised.
>>>
>>> It's not "lost"; I assume the root port raises an error because it
>>> can't send a transaction over a link that is down.
>>
>> The problem is AFAIK because the root port doesn't do that.
> 
> Interesting! Does it mean that PCIe Root Complex / Host Bridge (which I
> guess contains also logic for Root Port) does not signal transaction
> failure for config requests? Or it is just your opinion? Because I'm
> dealing with similar issues and I'm trying to find a way how to detect
> if some PCIe IP signal transaction error via AXI SLVERR response OR it
> just does not send any response back. So if you know some way how to
> check which one it is, I would like to know it too.

This is my _opinion_ based on what I've heard of some other IP 
integration issues, and what i've seen poking at this one from the 
perspective of a SW guy rather than a HW guy. So, basically worthless. 
But, you should consider that most of these cores/interconnects aren't 
aware of PCIe completion semantics so its the root ports responsibility 
to say, gracefully translate a non-posted write that doesn't have a 
completion for the interconnects its attached to, rather than tripping 
something generic like a SLVERR.

Anyway, for this I would poke around the pile of exception registers, 
with your specific processors manual handy because a lot of them are 
implementation defined.
>>>
>>> Is "SERROR" an ARM64 thing?  My guess is the root port would raise an
>>> Unsupported Request error or similar, and the root complex turns that
>>> into a system-specific SERROR?
> 
> Yes, SError is arm64 specific. It is asynchronous CPU interrupt and
> syndrome code then contains what happened.
> 
>> AFAIK, what is happening here the CPU core has an outstanding R/W request
>> for which it never receives a response from the root port. So basically its
>> an interconnect protocol violation that the CPU is complaining about rather
>> than something PCIe specific.
> 
> Could you describe (ideally in commit message) which SError is
> triggered? Normally if kernel receive SError interrupt it also puts into
> dmesg or oops message also syndrome code which describe what kind of
> error / event occurred. It could help also to other understand what is
> happening there.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists