Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PCI/AER: Enable AER on all PCIe devices supporting it

[Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 05:59:22PM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On 1/20/22 16:46, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 08:31:31AM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > On 1/19/22 11:37, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > 
> > > > And when you opened this issue with hotplugging, another thing for
> > > > followup changes in future is calling pcie_set_ecrc_checking() function
> > > > to align ECRC state of newly hotplugged device with "pci=ecrc=..."
> > > > cmdline option. As currently it is done only at that function
> > > > set_device_error_reporting().
> > > 
> > > Agreed, this is another area to look into. Not sure if it's okay to
> > > address this, once this patch-set has been accepted (if it will be).
> > 
> > ECRC might be something that could be peeled off first to reduce the
> > complexity of AER itself.
> > 
> > The ECRC capability and enable bits are in the AER Capability, so I
> > think it should be moved to pci_aer_init() so it happens for every
> > device as we enumerate it.
> 
> Just that there is no misunderstanding: You are thinking about something
> like this:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
> index 9fa1f97e5b27..5585fefc4d0e 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
> @@ -387,6 +387,9 @@ void pci_aer_init(struct pci_dev *dev)
>         pci_add_ext_cap_save_buffer(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_ERR, sizeof(u32) *
> n);
> 
>         pci_aer_clear_status(dev);
> +
> +       /* Enable ECRC checking if enabled and configured */
> +       pcie_set_ecrc_checking(dev);
>  }
> 
>  void pci_aer_exit(struct pci_dev *dev)
> @@ -1223,9 +1226,6 @@ static int set_device_error_reporting(struct pci_dev
> *dev, void *data)
>                         pci_disable_pcie_error_reporting(dev);
>         }
> 
> -       if (enable)
> -               pcie_set_ecrc_checking(dev);
> -
>         return 0;
>  }
> 
> Perhaps as patch 1/3 in this patch series? Or as some completely
> separate patch?

Yes.  Probably as 1/3, since subsequent patches may depend on this
one, or at least may not apply cleanly without this one.

Bjorn