Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 2/9] PCI/ACPI: Add _OSC based negotiation support for DPC | From | Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <> | Date | Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:44:41 -0700 |
| |
On 8/15/19 3:17 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 02:43:12PM -0700, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com wrote: >> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> >> >> As per PCI firmware specification r3.2 Downstream Port Containment >> Related Enhancements ECN, sec 4.5.1, table 4-6, OS can use bit 7 of _OSC >> Control Field to negotiate control over Downstream Port Containment >> (DPC) configuration of PCIe port. >> >> After _OSC negotiation, firmware will Set this bit to grant OS control >> over PCIe DPC configuration and Clear it if this feature was requested >> and denied, or was not requested. >> >> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> >> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> >> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> >> Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/acpi/pci_root.c | 6 ++++++ >> drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_core.c | 3 ++- >> drivers/pci/probe.c | 1 + >> include/linux/acpi.h | 3 ++- >> include/linux/pci.h | 2 +- >> 5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c >> index 314a187ed572..73b08f40b0da 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c >> @@ -142,6 +142,7 @@ static struct pci_osc_bit_struct pci_osc_control_bit[] = { >> { OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_AER_CONTROL, "AER" }, >> { OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_CAPABILITY_CONTROL, "PCIeCapability" }, >> { OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_LTR_CONTROL, "LTR" }, >> + { OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_DPC_CONTROL, "DPC" }, >> }; >> >> static void decode_osc_bits(struct acpi_pci_root *root, char *msg, u32 word, >> @@ -488,6 +489,9 @@ static void negotiate_os_control(struct acpi_pci_root *root, int *no_aspm, >> control |= OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_AER_CONTROL; >> } >> >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCIE_DPC)) >> + control |= OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_DPC_CONTROL; > Sec 4.5.2.4 says: > > If the OS sets bit 7 of the Control field, it must set bit 7 of the > Support field, indicating support for the Error Disconnect Recover > event.
I think the correct dependency should be , if OS indicates support for EDR then it must set bit 7 of the Control field to indicate support for DPC. As per DPC control bit definition, setting this bit indicates requesting control of DPC for OS (not EDR).
I will ask the spec author for clarification. But for now I will go with spec requirement, I will merge this patch with "Expose EDR support via _OSC to BIOS" patch and push it to the end of the patch set.
> > I see that you do set bit 7 (OSC_PCI_EDR_SUPPORT) in the Support field > in a later patch, but I don't think we should have this intermediate > state where we set OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_DPC_CONTROL in Control but not > OSC_PCI_EDR_SUPPORT in Support. > >> requested = control; >> status = acpi_pci_osc_control_set(handle, &control, >> OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_CAPABILITY_CONTROL); >> @@ -917,6 +921,8 @@ struct pci_bus *acpi_pci_root_create(struct acpi_pci_root *root, >> host_bridge->native_pme = 0; >> if (!(root->osc_control_set & OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_LTR_CONTROL)) >> host_bridge->native_ltr = 0; >> + if (!(root->osc_control_set & OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_DPC_CONTROL)) >> + host_bridge->native_dpc = 0; >> >> /* >> * Evaluate the "PCI Boot Configuration" _DSM Function. If it >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_core.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_core.c >> index 308c3e0c4a34..58c40fe7856f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_core.c >> @@ -252,7 +252,8 @@ static int get_port_device_capability(struct pci_dev *dev) >> } >> >> if (pci_find_ext_capability(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_DPC) && >> - pci_aer_available() && services & PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_AER) >> + pci_aer_available() && services & PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_AER && >> + (pcie_ports_native || host->native_dpc)) >> services |= PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_DPC; >> >> if (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM || >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c >> index a3c7338fad86..cf8acdd62089 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c >> @@ -601,6 +601,7 @@ static void pci_init_host_bridge(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge) >> bridge->native_shpc_hotplug = 1; >> bridge->native_pme = 1; >> bridge->native_ltr = 1; >> + bridge->native_dpc = 1; >> } >> >> struct pci_host_bridge *pci_alloc_host_bridge(size_t priv) >> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h >> index 9426b9aaed86..8959ed322e15 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h >> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h >> @@ -525,7 +525,8 @@ extern bool osc_pc_lpi_support_confirmed; >> #define OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_AER_CONTROL 0x00000008 >> #define OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_CAPABILITY_CONTROL 0x00000010 >> #define OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_LTR_CONTROL 0x00000020 >> -#define OSC_PCI_CONTROL_MASKS 0x0000003f >> +#define OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_DPC_CONTROL 0x00000080 >> +#define OSC_PCI_CONTROL_MASKS 0x000000ff > You added 0x80, but 0x3f | 0x80 == 0xbf, not 0xff, so I expected > OSC_PCI_CONTROL_MASKS would change to 0xbf. Why the difference? Good catch. Even though spec has support for bit[6], it should be masked till OS supports it. I will fix it in next version. > >> #define ACPI_GSB_ACCESS_ATTRIB_QUICK 0x00000002 >> #define ACPI_GSB_ACCESS_ATTRIB_SEND_RCV 0x00000004 >> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h >> index 9e700d9f9f28..9145136ca728 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/pci.h >> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h >> @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ struct pci_host_bridge { >> unsigned int native_pme:1; /* OS may use PCIe PME */ >> unsigned int native_ltr:1; /* OS may use PCIe LTR */ >> unsigned int preserve_config:1; /* Preserve FW resource setup */ >> - >> + unsigned int native_dpc:1; /* OS may use PCIe DPC */ > Please put this next to the other "native_*" bits and preserve the > blank line. ok. > >> /* Resource alignment requirements */ >> resource_size_t (*align_resource)(struct pci_dev *dev, >> const struct resource *res, >> -- >> 2.21.0 >> -- Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Linux kernel developer
| |