[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <357cd058-09b3-345c-0461-45f1bea03d96@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:49:01 +0800
From: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To: Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, <leedom@...il.com>
CC: Michael Werner <werner@...lsio.com>,
Ganesh Goudar <ganeshgr@...lsio.com>,
Arjun V <arjun@...lsio.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.com>,
"Asit K Mallick" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Patrick J Cramer <patrick.j.cramer@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Suravee Suthikulpanit" <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
Bob Shaw <Bob.Shaw@....com>, h <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
Amir Ancel <amira@...lanox.com>,
"Gabriele Paoloni" <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
LinuxArm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
<jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PCI: Add new PCIe Fabric End Node flag,
PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING
hi, Casey:
On 2017/5/2 7:13, Casey Leedom wrote:
> The new flag PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING indicates that the Relaxed
> Ordering Attribute should not be used on Transaction Layer Packets destined
> for the PCIe End Node so flagged. Initially flagged this way are Intel
> E5-26xx Root Complex Ports which suffer from a Flow Control Credit
> Performance Problem and AMD A1100 ARM ("SEATTLE") Root Complex Ports which
> don't obey PCIe 3.0 ordering rules which can lead to Data Corruption.
> ---
> drivers/pci/quirks.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/pci.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> index f754453..4ae78b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
> @@ -3979,6 +3979,44 @@ static void quirk_tw686x_class(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> quirk_tw686x_class);
>
> /*
> + * Some devices have problems with Transaction Layer Packets with the Relaxed
> + * Ordering Attribute set. Such devices should mark themselves and other
> + * Device Drivers should check before sending TLPs with RO set.
> + */
> +static void quirk_relaxedordering_disable(struct pci_dev *dev)
> +{
> + dev->dev_flags |= PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Intel E5-26xx Root Complex has a Flow Control Credit issue which can
> + * cause performance problems with Upstream Transaction Layer Packets with
> + * Relaxed Ordering set.
> + */
> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_CLASS_EARLY(0x8086, 0x6f02, PCI_CLASS_NOT_DEFINED, 8,
> + quirk_relaxedordering_disable);
> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_CLASS_EARLY(0x8086, 0x6f04, PCI_CLASS_NOT_DEFINED, 8,
> + quirk_relaxedordering_disable);
> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_CLASS_EARLY(0x8086, 0x6f08, PCI_CLASS_NOT_DEFINED, 8,
> + quirk_relaxedordering_disable);
> +
> +/*
> + * The AMD ARM A1100 (AKA "SEATTLE") SoC has a bug in its PCIe Root Complex
> + * where Upstream Transaction Layer Packets with the Relaxed Ordering
> + * Attribute clear are allowed to bypass earlier TLPs with Relaxed Ordering
> + * set. This is a violation of the PCIe 3.0 Transaction Ordering Rules
> + * outlined in Section 2.4.1 (PCI Express(r) Base Specification Revision 3.0
> + * November 10, 2010). As a result, on this platform we can't use Relaxed
> + * Ordering for Upstream TLPs.
> + */
> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_CLASS_EARLY(0x1022, 0x1a00, PCI_CLASS_NOT_DEFINED, 8,
> + quirk_relaxedordering_disable);
> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_CLASS_EARLY(0x1022, 0x1a01, PCI_CLASS_NOT_DEFINED, 8,
> + quirk_relaxedordering_disable);
> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_CLASS_EARLY(0x1022, 0x1a02, PCI_CLASS_NOT_DEFINED, 8,
> + quirk_relaxedordering_disable);
> +
> +/*
> * Per PCIe r3.0, sec 2.2.9, "Completion headers must supply the same
> * values for the Attribute as were supplied in the header of the
> * corresponding Request, except as explicitly allowed when IDO is used."
> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
> index eb3da1a..6764f66 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> @@ -178,6 +178,8 @@ enum pci_dev_flags {
> PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_PM_RESET = (__force pci_dev_flags_t) (1 << 7),
> /* Get VPD from function 0 VPD */
> PCI_DEV_FLAGS_VPD_REF_F0 = (__force pci_dev_flags_t) (1 << 8),
> + /* Don't use Relaxed Ordering for TLPs directed at this device */
> + PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING = (__force pci_dev_flags_t) (1 << 9),
> };
What about add a new general func to check the RO for several drivers to use them ?
just like:
#define pci_dev_support_relaxed_ordering(struct pci_dev *root) \
(!(root->dev_flags & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING))
Thanks
Ding
>
> enum pci_irq_reroute_variant {
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists