Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cxl/pci: Fix appropriate checking for _OSC while handling CXL RAS registers

[Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com>]

On 8/16/2023 2:33 PM, Smita Koralahalli wrote:
> On 8/16/2023 11:06 AM, Dave Jiang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/4/23 05:09, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 23:01:27 +0000
>>> Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to Section 9.17.2, Table 9-26 of CXL Specification [1], owner
>>>> of AER should also own CXL Protocol Error Management as there is no
>>>> explicit control of CXL Protocol error. And the CXL RAS Cap registers
>>>> reported on Protocol errors should check for AER _OSC rather than CXL
>>>> Memory Error Reporting Control _OSC.
>>>>
>>>> The CXL Memory Error Reporting Control _OSC specifically highlights
>>>> handling Memory Error Logging and Signaling Enhancements. These 
>>>> kinds of
>>>> errors are reported through a device's mailbox and can be managed
>>>> independently from CXL Protocol Errors.
>>>>
>>>> This change fixes handling and reporting CXL Protocol Errors and RAS
>>>> registers natively with native AER and FW-First CXL Memory Error 
>>>> Reporting
>>>> Control.
>>>>
>>>> [1] Compute Express Link (CXL) Specification, Revision 3.1, Aug 1 2022.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 248529edc86f ("cxl: add RAS status unmasking for CXL")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Smita Koralahalli 
>>>> <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com>
>>>
>>> I'd be tempted to add a comment on why this returns 0 rather than an
>>> error.  I think that makes sense but it isn't immediately obvious from
>>> the local context.
>>>
>>> Otherwise LGTM
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
>>
>> Echo Jonathan's comment.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
> 
> Yes, and Dan is probably against returning error code.

Against returning zero. My bad sorry!
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/64d1b3e78629f_5ea6e2944@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch/ 
> 
> 
> But I think returning zero is required as we don't want to interfere 
> with cxl device access when operating in native cxl memory error 
> reporting. Returning error code will basically fail cxl_pci_probe() and 
> thus fail to create a cxl device node.
> 
> I was thinking a single line comment as: "Return zero to not block the 
> communication with the cxl device when in native memory error reporting 
> mode".
> 
> Agree? Or anything more that needs to be added?
> 
> Thanks,
> Smita
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> v2:
>>>>     Added fixes tag.
>>>>     Included what the patch fixes in commit message.
>>>> v3:
>>>>     Added "Reviewed-by" tag.
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/cxl/pci.c | 6 +++---
>>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
>>>> index 1cb1494c28fe..2323169b6e5f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cxl/pci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
>>>> @@ -541,9 +541,9 @@ static int cxl_pci_ras_unmask(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>>>           return 0;
>>>>       }
>>>> -    /* BIOS has CXL error control */
>>>> -    if (!host_bridge->native_cxl_error)
>>>> -        return -ENXIO;
>>>> +    /* BIOS has PCIe AER error control */
>>>> +    if (!host_bridge->native_aer)
>>>> +        return 0;
>>>>       rc = pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, &cap);
>>>>       if (rc)
>>>
>