[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231102153345.GA30347@wunner.de>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 16:33:45 +0100
From: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, andreas.noever@...il.com,
michael.jamet@...el.com, YehezkelShB@...il.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, Alexander.Deucher@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: Ignore PCIe ports used for tunneling in
pcie_bandwidth_available()
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 10:26:31AM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 11/2/2023 10:21, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 08:14:31PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > > Considering this I think it's a good idea to move that creation of the
> > > device link into drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c and store a bit in struct
> > > pci_device to indicate it's a tunneled port.
> > >
> > > Then 'thunderbolt' can look for this directly instead of walking all
> > > the FW nodes.
> > >
> > > pcie_bandwidth_available() can just look at the tunneled port bit
> > > instead of the existence of the device link.
> >
> > pci_is_thunderbolt_attached() should already be doing exactly what
> > you want to achieve with the new bit. It tells you whether a PCI
> > device is behind a Thunderbolt tunnel. So I don't think a new bit
> > is actually needed.
>
> It's only for a device connected to an Intel TBT3 controller though; it
> won't apply to USB4.
Time to resurrect this patch here...? :)
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220204182820.130339-3-mario.limonciello@amd.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists