[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ba93f227-e46d-dbd0-1082-9396853e2fc4@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:29:52 -0700
From: Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, oohall@...il.com,
Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
Fontenot Nathan <Nathan.Fontenot@....com>,
Jay Cornwall <Jay.Cornwall@....com>,
Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PCI: pciehp: Clear the optional capabilities in
DEVCTL2 on a hot-plug
On 6/28/2023 6:25 AM, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 10:38:54AM -0700, Smita Koralahalli wrote:
>> Okay, I see there are no objections except for Bjorn/Jay's comments on
>>
>> "But there could be devices where AtomicOps are nominally supported but
>> untested or broken.."
>>
>> Would this be an issue?
>
> I think you said that BIOS enables AtomicOps on certain AMD machines?
> Or did that observation only apply to 10 Bit tags?
Yes, that observation right now applies only to 10 bit tags.
>
> If BIOS does enable AtomicOps, it would be interesting to know which
> logic BIOS follows, i.e. how does it determine whether to set
> AtomicOp Requester Enable on Endpoints?
I agree this is a very good thing to know. I have followed up with the
BIOS team to get some pointers on this. I will get back to you soon.
>
> It would also be interesting to know how far that BIOS has proliferated,
> i.e. how much experience with various Endpoint devices exists in the
> real world. If it turns out that BIOS has enabled the feature for
> years on a wide range of Endpoints without any issues, I think
> that would render concerns mute that enabling it in the kernel
> might cause regressions.
>
> I don't know why the spec says that "discovery of AtomicOp Requester
> capabilities is outside the scope of this specification". I imagine
> it would be possible to set AtomicOp Requester Enable, then read it
> to determine whether the bit is now indeed 1 or hard-wired to 0.
> In the latter case, AtomicOp Requester capabilities can be assumed
> to be absent. So that would be a way to make do without any other
> specific discovery of AtomicOp Requester capabilities.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lukas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists