[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1427a905-1d01-4b90-8af5-acd1a7f5b1d7@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22:43 +0530
From: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, treding@...dia.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
kthota@...dia.com, mmaddireddy@...dia.com, sagar.tv@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] PCI: Clear errors logged in Secondary Status Register
Hi Bjorn,
Sorry to bug you.
Is this change good to be accepted?
Thanks,
Vidya Sagar
On 01-04-2024 13:29, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> Just checking on this thread.
> Is there anything else you want me to clarify on?
>
> Thanks,
> Vidya Sagar
>
> On 14-03-2024 06:09, Vidya Sagar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23-01-2024 04:30, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 08:02:58PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
>>>> The enumeration process leaves the 'Received Master Abort' bit set in
>>>> the Secondary Status Register of the downstream port in the following
>>>> scenarios.
>>>>
>>>> (1) The device connected to the downstream port has ARI capability
>>>> and that makes the kernel set the 'ARI Forwarding Enable' bit in
>>>> the Device Control 2 Register of the downstream port. This
>>>> effectively makes the downstream port forward the configuration
>>>> requests targeting the devices downstream of it, even though they
>>>> don't exist in reality. It causes the downstream devices return
>>>> completions with UR set in the status in turn causing 'Received
>>>> Master Abort' bit set.
>>>>
>>>> In contrast, if the downstream device doesn't have ARI capability,
>>>> the 'ARI Forwarding Enable' bit in the downstream port is not set
>>>> and any configuration requests targeting the downstream devices
>>>> that don't exist are terminated (section 6.13 of PCI Express Base
>>>> 6.0 spec) in the downstream port itself resulting in no change of
>>>> the 'Received Master Abort' bit.
>>>>
>>>> (2) A PCIe switch is connected to the downstream port and when the
>>>> enumeration flow tries to explore the presence of devices that
>>>> don't really exist downstream of the switch, the downstream
>>>> port receives the completions with UR set causing the 'Received
>>>> Master Abort' bit set.
>>> Are these the only possible ways this error is logged? I expected
>>> them to be logged when we enumerate below a Root Port that has nothing
>>> attached, for example.
>> In this case, there won't be any TLP sent downstream. I talked about this
>> scenario in the
>> second paragraph of point (1) above.
>>> Does clearing them in pci_scan_bridge_extend() cover all ways this
>>> error might be logged during enumeration? I can't remember whether
>>> all enumeration goes through this path.
>> So far in my testing, clearing it in pci_scan_bridge_extend() covers all the
>> cases.
>>
>>>> Clear 'Received Master Abort' bit to keep the bridge device in a clean
>>>> state post enumeration.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2:
>>>> * Changed commit message based on Bjorn's feedback
>>>>
>>>> drivers/pci/probe.c | 3 +++
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c
>>>> index 795534589b98..640d2871b061 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
>>>> @@ -1470,6 +1470,9 @@ static int pci_scan_bridge_extend(struct pci_bus
>>>> *bus, struct pci_dev *dev,
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> out:
>>>> + /* Clear errors in the Secondary Status Register */
>>>> + pci_write_config_word(dev, PCI_SEC_STATUS, 0xffff);
>>>> +
>>>> pci_write_config_word(dev, PCI_BRIDGE_CONTROL, bctl);
>>>>
>>>> pm_runtime_put(&dev->dev);
>>>> --
>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists