[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4a176d9f-3a05-4eb4-b64d-b6b7f5ed2413@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 10:03:01 -0700
From: Graham Whyte <grwhyte@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, shyamsaini@...ux.microsoft.com, code@...icks.com,
Okaya@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] PCI: Reduce FLR delay to 10ms for MSFT devices
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Graham Whyte wrote:
>
>
> On 6/16/2025 2:05 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 12:02:41PM -0700, Graham Whyte wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2025 8:33 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 09:41:45AM -0700, Graham Whyte wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/2025 11:31 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 01:08:21PM -0700, Graham Whyte wrote:
>>>>>>> We can ask our HW engineers to implement function readiness but we need
>>>>>>> to be able to support exiting products, hence why posting it as a quirk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your report sounds like it works perfectly fine, it's just that you
>>>>>> want to reduce the delay. For that you'll need to stick to the standard
>>>>>> methods instead of adding quirks, which are for buggy hardware that does
>>>>>> not otherwise work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bjorn, what would you recommend as next steps here?
>>>>
>>>> This is a tough call and I don't pretend to have an obvious answer. I
>>>> understand the desire to improve performance. On the other hand, PCI
>>>> has been successful over the long term because devices adhere to
>>>> standardized ways of doing things, which makes generic software
>>>> possible. Quirks degrade that story, of course, especially when there
>>>> is an existing standardized solution that isn't being used. I'm not
>>>> at all happy about vendors that decide against the standard solution
>>>> and then ask OS folks to do extra work to compensate.
>>>
>>> Should someone want to implement readiness time reporting down the road,
>>> they'll need to do the same work as patch 1 in this series (making the
>>> flr delay a configurable parameter).
>>
>> Sure. That's a trivial change. The problem is the quirk itself.
>>
>> The Readiness Time Reporting Extended Capability is read-only with no
>> control bits in it so it requires no actual logic in the device.
>> Maybe you can just implement that capability with a firmware change on
>> the device and add the corresponding Linux support for it.
>
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> We checked with our HW folks, it's not possible for us to update the pci
> register components with this particular card, they are read only. What
> are your thoughts on the sysfs approach mentioned in the previous email?
>
> Thanks,
> Graham
Hi Bjorn, just wanted to follow up on this here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists