[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110512163210.132a2954@jbarnes-desktop>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:32:10 -0700
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
Carolyn Wyborny <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>,
Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
Greg Rose <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>,
PJ Waskiewicz <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
Alex Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
John Ronciak <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Naga Chumbalkar <nagananda.chumbalkar@...com>,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci, e1000e: Add and use __pci_disable_link_state
On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:23:21 -0700
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> On 05/09/2011 02:35 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:54:32 -0700
> > Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Need to use it in _e1000e_disable_aspm.
> >> when aer happens,
> >> pci_walk_bus already have down_read(&pci_bus_sem)...
> >> then report_slot_reset
> >> ==> e1000_io_slot_reset
> >> ==> e1000e_disable_aspm
> >> ==> pci_disable_link_state...
> >>
> >> We can not use pci_disable_link_state, and it will try to hold pci_bus_sem again.
> >>
> >> Try to have __pci_disable_link_state that will not need to hold pci_bus_sem.
> >
> > What about the other callers of e1000e_disable_aspm? Do they already
> > have the lock held or is it just reset that needs the already locked
> > version?
>
> yes.
>
> there is another version when aspm is not defined. and it does not use any lock.
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCIEASPM
> static void __e1000e_disable_aspm(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 state)
> {
> pci_disable_link_state(pdev, state);
> }
> #else
> static void __e1000e_disable_aspm(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 state)
> {
> int pos;
> u16 reg16;
>
> /*
> * Both device and parent should have the same ASPM setting.
> * Disable ASPM in downstream component first and then upstream.
> */
> pos = pci_pcie_cap(pdev);
> pci_read_config_word(pdev, pos + PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, ®16);
> reg16 &= ~state;
> pci_write_config_word(pdev, pos + PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, reg16);
>
> if (!pdev->bus->self)
> return;
>
> pos = pci_pcie_cap(pdev->bus->self);
> pci_read_config_word(pdev->bus->self, pos + PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, ®16);
> reg16 &= ~state;
> pci_write_config_word(pdev->bus->self, pos + PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, reg16);
> }
> #endif
No, I mean __e1000e_disable_aspm is called from several spots:
*** drivers/net/e1000e/82571.c:
e1000_get_variants_82571[435] e1000e_disable_aspm(adapter->pdev, PCIE_LINK_STATE_L0S);
*** drivers/net/e1000e/netdev.c:
e1000_change_mtu[5027] e1000e_disable_aspm(adapter->pdev, PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1);
__e1000_resume[5402] e1000e_disable_aspm(pdev, PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1);
e1000_io_slot_reset[5650] e1000e_disable_aspm(pdev, PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1);
e1000_probe[5797] e1000e_disable_aspm(pdev, PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1);
Are all of them safe for the unlocked version of ASPM disable?
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists