Message-ID: <4761096c-4445-8928-5faa-2674272cd088@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Oct 2021 15:16:52 +0800
From:   Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@...wei.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC:     <hch@...radead.org>, <kw@...ux.com>, <logang@...tatee.com>,
        <leon@...nel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        <rajur@...lsio.com>, <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>,
        <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 4/8] PCI/sysfs: Add a 10-Bit Tag sysfs file PCIe
 Endpoint devices



On 2021/10/29 1:24, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 03:44:49PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
>> On 2021/10/28 6:28, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 06:49:34PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
>>>> PCIe spec 5.0 r1.0 section 2.2.6.2 says:
>>>>
>>>>   If an Endpoint supports sending Requests to other Endpoints (as
>>>>   opposed to host memory), the Endpoint must not send 10-Bit Tag
>>>>   Requests to another given Endpoint unless an implementation-specific
>>>>   mechanism determines that the Endpoint supports 10-Bit Tag Completer
>>>>   capability.
>>>>
>>>> Add a 10bit_tag sysfs file, write 0 to disable 10-Bit Tag Requester
>>>> when the driver does not bind the device. The typical use case is for
>>>> p2pdma when the peer device does not support 10-Bit Tag Completer.
>>>> Write 1 to enable 10-Bit Tag Requester when RC supports 10-Bit Tag
>>>> Completer capability. The typical use case is for host memory targeted
>>>> by DMA Requests. The 10bit_tag file content indicate current status of
>>>> 10-Bit Tag Requester Enable.
>>>
>>> Don't we have a hole here?  We're adding knobs to control 10-Bit Tag
>>> usage, but don't we have basically the same issues with Extended
>>> (8-bit) Tags?
>>
>> All PCIe completers are required to support 8-bit tags
>> from the "[PATCH] PCI: enable extended tags support for PCIe endpoints"
>> (https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/1474769434-5756-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org/).
>>
>> I ask hardware colleagues, also says all PCIe devices should support
>> 8-bit tags completer default, so seems no need to do this for 8-bit tags.
>
> Oh, right, I forgot that, thanks for the reminder!  Let's add a
> comment in pci_configure_extended_tags() to that effect so I'll
> remember next time.
Ok, Will do.
>
> I think the appropriate reference is PCIe r5.0, sec 2.2.6.2, which
> says "Receivers/Completers must handle 8-bit Tag values correctly
> regardless of the setting of their Extended Tag Field Enable bit (see
> Section 7.5.3.4)."
>
> The Tag field was 8 bits all the way from PCIe r1.0, but until r2.1 it
> said that by default, only the lower 5 bits are used.
>
> The text about all Completers explicitly being required to support
> 8-bit Tags wasn't added until PCIe r3.0, which might explain some
> confusion and the presence of the Extended Tag Field Enable bit.
>
Thanks for the clarification.
> At the same time, can you fold pci_configure_10bit_tags() directly
> into pci_configure_extended_tags()?  It's pretty small and I think it
> will be easier if it's all in one place.
OK, will do.
>
>>> I wonder if we should be adding a more general "tags" file that can
>>> manage both 8-bit and 10-bit tag usage.
>
> I'm still thinking that maybe a generic name (without "10") would be
> better, even though we don't need it to manage 8-bit tags.  It's
> conceivable that there could be even more tag bits in the future, and
> it would be nice if we didn't have to add yet another file.
Looks good, will do.

Thanks,
Dongdong.
>
> Bjorn
> .
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists