* Re: [Bug 104431] New: second connected thunderbolt dock fails
2015-09-15 15:31 ` [Bug 104431] New: second connected thunderbolt dock fails Bjorn Helgaas
@ 2015-09-15 17:29 ` Jarod Wilson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jarod Wilson @ 2015-09-15 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bjorn Helgaas; +Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Yinghai Lu
On 2015-09-15 11:31 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc linux-pci]
>
> Hi Jarod,
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:19 PM, <bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org> wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104431
>>
>> Bug ID: 104431
>> Summary: second connected thunderbolt dock fails
>> Product: Drivers
>> Version: 2.5
>> Kernel Version: 4.2.0 + a handful of other patches
>> Hardware: All
>> OS: Linux
>> Tree: Mainline
>> Status: NEW
>> Severity: normal
>> Priority: P1
>> Component: PCI
>> Assignee: drivers_pci@kernel-bugs.osdl.org
>> Reporter: jarod@redhat.com
>> Regression: No
>>
>> I've been loaned a pair of thunderbolt docking peripherals. One is an Akitio
>> Thunder Dock, which has usb3, esata and firewire 800 on it, the other is a
>> StarTech Thunderbolt Docking Station, which has usb3, a usb audio device and an
>> Intel i210 GbE device.
>>
>> Individually, each of the docks work fine (at least with the 4.3.x pciehp patch
>> for my zbook and an igb patch I just sent upstream), hotplug and remove. They
>> even work correctly if connected together -- i.e., connect the two docks
>> together, then connect to the host, and both come up fine.
>>
>> However, when I connect one dock directly to the host, then the second dock,
>> the second dock fails to function, with the following output upon connection:
>>
>> pciehp 0000:06:04.0:pcie24: pending interrupts 0x0008 from Slot Status
>> pciehp 0000:06:04.0:pcie24: Card present on Slot(4-1)
>> pciehp 0000:06:04.0:pcie24: pending interrupts 0x0100 from Slot Status
>> pciehp 0000:06:04.0:pcie24: pciehp_check_link_active: lnk_status = 3041
>> pciehp 0000:06:04.0:pcie24: slot(4-1): Link Up event
>> pciehp 0000:06:04.0:pcie24: Link Up event ignored on slot(4-1): already
>> powering on
>> pciehp 0000:06:04.0:pcie24: pciehp_check_link_active: lnk_status = 3041
>> pciehp 0000:06:04.0:pcie24: pciehp_check_link_status: lnk_status = 3041
>> pci 0000:0b:00.0: [8086:1547] type 01 class 0x060400
>> pci 0000:0b:00.0: supports D1 D2
>> pci 0000:0b:00.0: PME# supported from D0 D1 D2 D3hot D3cold
>> No bus number available for hot-added bridge 0000:0b:00.0
>> pcieport 0000:06:04.0: bridge window [io 0x1000-0x0fff] to [bus 0b] add_size
>> 1000
>> pcieport 0000:06:04.0: res[13]=[io 0x1000-0x0fff] res_to_dev_res add_size 1000
>> min_align 1000
>> pcieport 0000:06:04.0: res[13]=[io 0x1000-0x1fff] res_to_dev_res add_size 1000
>> min_align 1000
>> pcieport 0000:06:04.0: BAR 13: no space for [io size 0x1000]
>> pcieport 0000:06:04.0: BAR 13: failed to assign [io size 0x1000]
>> pcieport 0000:06:04.0: BAR 13: no space for [io size 0x1000]
>> pcieport 0000:06:04.0: BAR 13: failed to assign [io size 0x1000]
>> pcieport 0000:06:04.0: PCI bridge to [bus 0b]
>> pcieport 0000:06:04.0: bridge window [mem 0xb4700000-0xb49fffff]
>> pcieport 0000:06:04.0: bridge window [mem 0x90700000-0x909fffff 64bit pref]
>>
>> I'll attach full dmesg dumps from both simultaneous and one at a time
>> connection attempts shortly.
>
> Thanks for the report. The logs only start from the hotplug, so they
> don't show the initial enumeration at boot. Can you also attach
> "lspci -vv" output from the working case, so we can see which devices
> are in which dock? I started working it out from the logs, but that's
> pretty tedious.
I just attached dmesg from a fresh boot prior to attaching any
thunderbolt devices, as well as full lspci -vv output with both docks
attached.
> I *think* the second dock that fails is rooted at 0b:00.0, and it's
> being added below 06:04.0 Since the 0b:00.0 tree wasn't present at
> boot, we don't know how many bus numbers to reserve for 06:04.0, and
> we only reserved one (bus 0b). Obviously that's not enough for all
> the devices in that dock.
I need to double-check possible differences with reversing the ordering
of connection, but that seems to be what I'm seeing. I'm assuming the
first dock connected just sucks up as many resources as it can grab, and
the second one gets resource-starved.
> For memory and I/O, we reserve default amounts of space
> (pci_hotplug_mem_size and pci_hotplug_io_size), but I don't think we
> do anything corresponding for bus numbers. Maybe we should.
Sounds plausible.
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@redhat.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread