[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] PCI/MSI: Don't touch MSI bits when the PCI device is disconnected
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 07:22:04PM +0000, wrote:
> On 11/14/2018 12:00 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Just to make sure we're on the same page, can you point me to this
> > rule? I do see that OSPM must request control of AER using _OSC
> > before it touches the AER registers. What I don't see is the
> > connection between firmware-first and the AER registers.
> ACPI 6.2 -, Table 6-197:
> PCI Express Advanced Error Reporting control:
> * The firmware sets this bit to 1 to grant control over PCI Express
> Advanced Error Reporting. If firmware allows the OS control of this
> feature, then in the context of the _OSC method it must ensure that
> error messages are routed to device interrupts as described in the PCI
> Express Base Specification[...]
> Now I'm confused too:
> * HEST -> __aer_firmware_first
> This is used for touching/not touching AER bits
> * _OSC -> bridge->native_aer
> Used to enable/not enable AER portdrv service
> Maybe Keith knows better why we're doing it this way. From ACPI text, it
> doesn't seem that control of AER would be tied to HEST entries, although
> in practice, it is.

I'm not sure, that predates me. HEST does have a FIRMWARE_FIRST flag, but
spec does not say anymore on relation to _OSC control or AER capability.
Nothing in PCIe spec either.

I also don't know why Linux disables the AER driver if only one
device has a FIRMWARE_FIRST HEST. Shouldn't that just be a per-device

> > The closest I can find is the "Enabled" field in the HEST PCIe
> > AER structures (ACPI v6.2, sec, .5, .6), where it says:
> >
> > If the field value is 1, indicates this error source is
> > to be enabled.
> >
> > If the field value is 0, indicates that the error source
> > is not to be enabled.
> >
> > If FIRMWARE_FIRST is set in the flags field, the Enabled
> > field is ignored by the OSPM.
> >
> > AFAICT, Linux completely ignores the Enabled field in these
> > structures.
> I don't think ignoring the field is a problem:
> * With FFS, OS should ignore it.
> * Without FFS, we have control, and we get to make the decisions anyway.
> In the latter case we decide whether to use AER, independent of the crap
> in ACPI. I'm not even sure why "Enabled" matters in native AER handling.
> Probably one of the check-boxes in "Binary table designer's handbook"?

And why doesn't Linux do anything with _OSC response other than logging
it? If OS control wasn't granted, shouldn't that take priority over HEST?

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-14 21:28    [W:0.081 / U:1.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site