From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 322971E1DE7 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2025 15:43:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749829414; cv=none; b=EeJUOtHP0VKD6lc2THLBYeiPMIw99IPXOaDL/3Pk/vWf5WoVeBrchO2v5JVc6J2Y8gNvPtm938HLCCMPYaj5KW/bgZOc9DEEauBr7PSeQuiCBlLR3Oq/+eZ7DBFvxZ1V0C0ebnBZveFfhG74SmaohAkzzovtKSEnRJknWmQ5w5A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749829414; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UcvleXs0gtRq66DG3komO37ks+Oqnv/1Ck1dY2JB4Fs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=NzoOU7mpKopFXE9Q4a20kW8ne6KYcoWmFf9F8/E5ApNE9yfdlzTyN3Gp/Q2ISNQx+i8LLdqNtCismzB9UBSg2vBkYWobXo77i++jTDMBcdIypMhdbwyzI/azalH7DdSP3CzCFZASpLLYBbu1c4l/6dS1JdHNRS/KftQBjly3usc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Q/ACQeov; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Q/ACQeov" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1749829413; x=1781365413; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UcvleXs0gtRq66DG3komO37ks+Oqnv/1Ck1dY2JB4Fs=; b=Q/ACQeovCwzezc7UXLJizXOic43XM+5ZJnhost7NAZ0LGlNLDjMPnw1x 8J9BYUsgUbdThP3po+Exj/dHydcVTzwKHGbUNospQQXOUzDyg9eRS/0bX ya5ZAZduglWP+rQ+3zfCuBES6Kj6oDxHPKb9o9F+GBOaTH7V8ywzKV5eq C23PVlJbwaTjxoHOwXvHAcuzCGa6BPagIQXskinar1Wr4LY5kuVnS1rGo Pl7bimCnQrmgbyfNFgMhh7lACJJU3B9gzX05i6NzB6cusQRk4uW/eT57E 0lctumr605Vguye+NPKOyhKLGuxZQYkx5xQJpsbBUkiZLBoHoM+ZcxLto A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: DhHpGOS2QMu79CBcTaPGuA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: s1DY7OUwQGCpXd0eaUfQtQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11463"; a="52033001" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,234,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="52033001" Received: from fmviesa003.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.143]) by orvoesa109.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jun 2025 08:43:32 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: m/i5e8XOSwynl9jJ/bsuBQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: n6l5RpD7SUqme2rSGg+3eg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,234,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="151675431" Received: from iherna2-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.125.111.232]) ([10.125.111.232]) by fmviesa003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jun 2025 08:43:31 -0700 Message-ID: <945da654-8648-49f9-8ed0-99c165d90198@intel.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:43:30 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] cxl: Delay HB port and switch dport probing until endpoint dev probe To: Gregory Price , Robert Richter Cc: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net, jonathan.cameron@huawei.com, alison.schofield@intel.com, vishal.l.verma@intel.com, ira.weiny@intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, Alejandro Lucero , Jonathan Cameron , Li Ming References: <20250521183443.3828320-1-dave.jiang@intel.com> <026e7506-b248-43bb-9118-5e3c3d817c90@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dave Jiang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/13/25 8:15 AM, Gregory Price wrote: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 11:44:39AM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: >>> I'm trying to understand your pain point WRT to why ordering is >>> necessary. Is it somehow breaking your user tooling? I'm not sure I >> >> The expectation is broken in a way that Port in the LnkCap no longer >> matches with numbers in the target_list attribute and with dport%d. >> But I don't know of tools that break here. >> > > Maybe just expose a given port's "real" port ID as portN/target_id? > > The issue is that async probe breaks sysfs object numbering in general, > and so "N" and "ID" don't have an intrinsic relationship. I imagine we > should fix anything that assume this relationship exists - rather than > try to retain that relationship. > > That gives a more formal search mechanism for ports based on a target_id > and better naming. (I don't actually care what we call it) I'm currently doing testing. But so far it seems possible to do dport allocation at a later point as Robert suggested when the downstream port should be valid and we don't need a separate virtual id. We'll see if I hit anything weird. It's working for me on qemu, but cxl-test needs some massaging still. > > ~Gregory