From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2302EC3ABAC for ; Fri, 2 May 2025 17:27:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD53910E0E8; Fri, 2 May 2025 17:27:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="M2WsPRkf"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.13]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4531810E0E8 for ; Fri, 2 May 2025 17:27:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1746206829; x=1777742829; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=W6QpKwTUbmImktx4onmBTNMyIoUlWiEqmnx3/WhqYLY=; b=M2WsPRkfHU19ELZLip11ueJaYwLZHCjRmrIjMu+DInMONJyhBmoPS4kD YwlHzVvz+lh0OkZITb7Jkq/YMeEBdpOtobJQrnB9hpay1eFoCSqXG6GLD 2cfQJ0KybDE0y+id5LFlrhnEMJzBWJ1TaC+vXliXzJG2O7MKGwWk1yn3E 1DcQ295xxuqSp6LP2KXU56+8gCBTmLJYCJWaMa+8uwvbeMka3x0kcr9fe kXHJQcgum9+MHLXl2tWvBNR1bmUY4WK0/NrcKyBCKSzhSYSqmTw+LABwn odM6bHHIpNhrEOhViBVidBQqpyBX90bZDXOpX1xkT+yZAqq5M5Kxki0pU A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: /XReISNuS8mYKQnVH+c3Ug== X-CSE-MsgGUID: QjjaEpafQJyl3+R0QnXuMw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11421"; a="50550783" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,257,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="50550783" Received: from orviesa010.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.150]) by fmvoesa107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 May 2025 10:27:08 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: S4vt43amTDqknGjUqOYcLw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: RrQNFqcKTc6cKaXhfwZY4w== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,257,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="134587222" Received: from black.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.28]) by orviesa010.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 May 2025 10:27:07 -0700 Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 20:27:02 +0300 From: Raag Jadav To: Lucas De Marchi Cc: "Vivi, Rodrigo" , "intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org" , "Nilawar, Badal" , "Tauro, Riana" , "Gupta, Anshuman" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] BMG PCIe Gen5 downgrade attributes and usage Message-ID: References: <20250425140626.3082588-1-raag.jadav@intel.com> <8b0ca59b5c5ed0cf5fb3efb844afa84fe3c39570.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Xe graphics driver List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-xe-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-xe" On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 11:16:02AM -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 05:19:16AM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote: > > On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 01:10:49AM +0530, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote: > > > On Tue, 2025-04-29 at 08:38 +0300, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 04:09:05PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 04:00:44PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 01:12:38PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 07:36:23PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > > > > > > This series exposes sysfs attributes for BMG PCIe Gen5 > > > > > > > > downgrade and > > > > > > > > documents their usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anything I can do to move this forward? > > > > > > > > > > > > I almost push it here, but then I noticed that it is > > > > > > gen5_downgrade. > > > > > > Hadn't we agreed to follow what spec says so? > > > > > > > > > > > > "to then automatically persist the Gen4 downgrade flag in Flash" > > > > > > "Write Gen4 Downgrade bit to MRC Flash File" > > > > > > > > > > > > == Applying  PCIe Gen4 Downgrade == > > > > > > > > > > > > Although I see that there are some mentions calling "Gen5 > > > > > > downgrade", "Gen4 downgrade" seems to be the most used term in > > > > > > the specs, specially when calling bits and > > > > > > sections names... > > > > > > > > Which is what I followed until we had a change of preference over gen > > > > definition. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/intel-xe/34b33d3135fc24302db2764ce86a641e7c49054f.camel@intel.com/ > > > > > > > > > Because of the inconsistencies and our back and forth here and to > > > > > get prepared > > > > > for future cases where we might need to downgrade from gen6 to > > > > > gen5, the current > > > > > Architecture recommendation is to simply go with > > > > > > > > > > so /sys/bus/pci/devices//pcie_gen_downgrade_{status,capable} > > > > > > > > I really like Lucas' proposal, which is also consistent with similar > > > > existing > > > > attributes. > > > > > > > > /sys/bus/pci/devices//auto_link_downgrade_capable > > > > > > I'm sorry for the delay in the response, it took a while to get > > > confirmation. We can go with this one. or with the one you sent > > > already. Your call. Just let me know that I push the version you tell > > > and tell the architects to update the spec. > > > > I'm okay with either one. But since it was Lucas' idea, let's hear his > > thoughts. > > > > Lucas, can we move forward with auto_link_downgrade_capable? > > yes, I'm ok with that. We also have ack from the architecture. Thank you for the suggestion. I'll add you to the credits :) Raag