[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2408091017050.61955@angie.orcam.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 14:24:40 +0100 (BST)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew W Carlis <mattc@...estorage.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/4] PCI: Rework error reporting with PCIe failed link
retraining
Hi,
This is v2 superseding a patch series originally posted here:
<https://lore.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.21.2402092125070.2376@angie.orcam.me.uk/>.
This patch series addresses issues observed by Ilpo as reported here:
<https://lore.kernel.org/r/aa2d1c4e-9961-d54a-00c7-ddf8e858a9b0@linux.intel.com/>,
one with excessive delays happening when `pcie_failed_link_retrain' is
called, but link retraining has not been actually attempted, and another
one with an API misuse caused by a merge mistake.
It also addresses an issue observed by Matthew as discussed here:
<https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240806000659.30859-1-mattc@purestorage.com/>
and here:
<https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240722193407.23255-1-mattc@purestorage.com/>.
where a stale LBMS bit state causes `pcie_failed_link_retrain', in the
absence of a downstream device, to leave the link stuck at the 2.5GT/s
speed rate, which then negatively impacts devices plugged in in the
future.
See individual change description for further details; 1/4 and 2/4 are
new changes, 3/4 supersedes:
<https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pci/patch/alpine.DEB.2.21.2402100045590.2376@angie.orcam.me.uk/>,
and 4/4 supersedes:
<https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pci/patch/alpine.DEB.2.21.2402100048440.2376@angie.orcam.me.uk/>.
These changes have been verified with a SiFive HiFive Unmatched system,
also using a small debug change to verify that the state of the LBMS bit
is clear at the exit from `pcie_failed_link_retrain'.
Ilpo, since 3/4 and 4/4 have only been trivially updated and their
combined effect is not changed even I chose to retain your Reviewed-by
tags from v1. Let me know if you disagree and what to do so you don't.
I apologise to take so long, it's been a tough period to me load-wise.
Maciej
Powered by blists - more mailing lists