From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Matthew W Carlis <mattc@purestorage.com>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] PCI/DPC: Request DPC only if also requesting AER
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 09:18:05 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240226151805.GA200026@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b81b1e5b-81fa-4df0-926d-1d75323cf47b@linux.intel.com>
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 11:46:07AM -0800, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>
> On 2/22/24 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> >
> > When booting with "pci=noaer", we don't request control of AER, but we
> > previously *did* request control of DPC, as in the dmesg log attached at
> > the bugzilla below:
> >
> > Command line: ... pci=noaer
> > acpi PNP0A08:00: _OSC: OS supports [ExtendedConfig ASPM ClockPM Segments MSI EDR HPX-Type3]
> > acpi PNP0A08:00: _OSC: OS now controls [PCIeHotplug SHPCHotplug PME PCIeCapability LTR DPC]
> >
> > That's illegal per PCI Firmware Spec, r3.3, sec 4.5.1, table 4-5, which
> > says:
> >
> > If the operating system sets this bit [OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_DPC_CONTROL], it
> > must also set bit 7 of the Support field (indicating support for Error
> > Disconnect Recover notifications) and bits 3 and 4 of the Control field
> > (requesting control of PCI Express Advanced Error Reporting and the PCI
> > Express Capability Structure).
>
> IIUC, this dependency is discussed in sec 4.5.2.4. "Dependencies
> Between _OSC Control Bits".
>
> Because handling of Downstream Port Containment has a dependency on
> Advanced Error Reporting, the operating system is required to
> request control over Advanced Error Reporting (bit 3 of the Control
> field) while requesting control over Downstream Port Containment
> Configuration (bit 7 of the Control field). If the operating system
> attempts to claim control of Downstream Port Containment
> Configuration without also claiming control over Advanced Error
> Reporting, firmware is required to refuse control of the feature
> being illegally claimed and mask the corresponding bit. Firmware is
> required to maintain ownership of Advanced Error Reporting if it
> retains ownership of Downstream Port Containment Configuration. If
> the operating system sets bit 7 of the Control field, it must set
> bit 7 of the Support field, indicating support for the Error
> Disconnect Recover event.
So I guess you're suggesting that there are two defects here?
1) Linux requested DPC control without requesting AER control.
2) Platform granted DPC control when it shouldn't have.
I do agree with that, but obviously we can only fix 1) in Linux.
> > Request DPC control only if we have also requested AER control.
> >
> > Fixes: ac1c8e35a326 ("PCI/DPC: Add Error Disconnect Recover (EDR) support")
> > Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218491#c12
> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.7+
> > Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Matthew W Carlis <mattc@purestorage.com>
> > Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
> > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
> > ---
> Code wise it looks fine to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
> > drivers/acpi/pci_root.c | 20 +++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
> > index 58b89b8d950e..efc292b6214e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
> > @@ -518,17 +518,19 @@ static u32 calculate_control(void)
> > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_PCI_SHPC))
> > control |= OSC_PCI_SHPC_NATIVE_HP_CONTROL;
> >
> > - if (pci_aer_available())
> > + if (pci_aer_available()) {
> > control |= OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_AER_CONTROL;
> >
> > - /*
> > - * Per the Downstream Port Containment Related Enhancements ECN to
> > - * the PCI Firmware Spec, r3.2, sec 4.5.1, table 4-5,
> > - * OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_DPC_CONTROL indicates the OS supports both DPC
> > - * and EDR.
> > - */
> > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCIE_DPC) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCIE_EDR))
> > - control |= OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_DPC_CONTROL;
> > + /*
> > + * Per PCI Firmware Spec, r3.3, sec 4.5.1, table 4-5, the
> > + * OS can request DPC control only if it has advertised
> > + * OSC_PCI_EDR_SUPPORT and requested both
> > + * OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_CAPABILITY_CONTROL and
> > + * OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_AER_CONTROL.
> > + */
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCIE_DPC))
> > + control |= OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_DPC_CONTROL;
> > + }
> >
> > return control;
> > }
>
> --
> Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
> Linux Kernel Developer
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-26 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-22 22:15 [PATCH v2 0/3] PCI/DPC: Clean up DPC vs AER/EDR ownership and Kconfig Bjorn Helgaas
2024-02-22 22:15 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] PCI/DPC: Request DPC only if also requesting AER Bjorn Helgaas
2024-02-25 19:46 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2024-02-26 15:18 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2024-02-26 15:46 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2024-02-26 16:33 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2024-02-26 16:50 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2024-02-22 22:15 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] PCI/DPC: Remove CONFIG_PCIE_EDR Bjorn Helgaas
2024-02-25 20:05 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2024-03-01 23:06 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2024-03-02 6:42 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2024-02-22 22:15 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] PCI/DPC: Encapsulate pci_acpi_add_edr_notifier() Bjorn Helgaas
2024-02-25 20:06 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2024-02-26 15:25 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2024-02-27 6:18 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] PCI/DPC: Clean up DPC vs AER/EDR ownership and Kconfig Ethan Zhao
2024-02-27 6:35 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2024-02-27 7:12 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-02-29 0:00 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240226151805.GA200026@bhelgaas \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=mattc@purestorage.com \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.