Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Mar 2018 21:04:47 +0530 | From | poza@codeauro ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH v12 0/6] Address error and recovery for AER and DPC |
| |
On 2018-03-12 20:28, Keith Busch wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 08:16:38PM +0530, poza@codeaurora.org wrote: >> On 2018-03-12 19:55, Keith Busch wrote: >> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 11:03:58PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote: >> > > On 3/11/2018 6:03 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:34:11PM +0530, Oza Pawandeep wrote: >> > > >> > > > That difference has been there since the beginning of DPC, so it has >> > > > nothing to do with *this* series EXCEPT for the fact that it really >> > > > complicates the logic you're adding to reset_link() and >> > > > broadcast_error_message(). >> > > > >> > > > We ought to be able to simplify that somehow because the only real >> > > > difference between AER and DPC should be that DPC automatically >> > > > disables the link and AER does it in software. >> > > >> > > I agree this should be possible. Code execution path should be almost >> > > identical to fatal error case. >> > > >> > > Is there any reason why you went to stop driver path, Keith? >> > >> > The fact is the link is truly down during a DPC event. When the link >> > is enabled again, you don't know at that point if the device(s) on the >> > other side have changed. Calling a driver's error handler for the wrong >> > device in an unknown state may have undefined results. Enumerating the >> > slot from scratch should be safe, and will assign resources, tune bus >> > settings, and bind to the matching driver. >> > >> > Per spec, DPC is the recommended way for handling surprise removal >> > events and even recommends DPC capable slots *not* set 'Surprise' >> > in Slot Capabilities so that removals are always handled by DPC. This >> > service driver was developed with that use in mind. >> >> Now it begs the question, that >> >> after DPC trigger >> >> should we enumerate the devices, ? >> or >> error handling callbacks, followed by stop devices followed by >> enumeration ? >> or >> error handling callbacks, followed by enumeration ? (no stop devices) > > I'm not sure I understand. The link is disabled while DPC is triggered, > so if anything, you'd want to un-enumerate everything below the > contained > port (that's what it does today). > > After releasing a slot from DPC, the link is allowed to retrain. If > there > is a working device on the other side, a link up event occurs. That > event is handled by the pciehp driver, and that schedules enumeration > no matter what you do to the DPC driver.
yes, that is what i current, but this patch-set makes DPC aware of error handling driver callbacks.
besides, in absence of pciehp there is nobody to do enumeration.
And, I was talking about pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device() in dpc. if DPC calls driver's error callbacks, is it required to stop the devices ?
| |