From: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kbusch@kernel.org,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, mahesh@linux.ibm.com,
oohall@gmail.com, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com,
terry.bowman@amd.com, tianruidong@linux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] PCI/ERR: Use pcie_aer_is_native() to check for native AER control
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:09:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1eaf1f94-e26b-4313-b6b7-51ad966fe28e@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aPoDbKebJD30NjKG@wunner.de>
在 2025/10/23 18:29, Lukas Wunner 写道:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 10:45:31PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
>> if (host->native_aer || pcie_ports_native) {
>> pcie_clear_device_status(bridge);
>> pci_aer_clear_nonfatal_status(bridge);
>> }
>>
>> This code clears both the PCIe Device Status register and AER status
>> registers when in native AER mode.
>>
>> pcie_clear_device_status() is renamed from
>> pci_aer_clear_device_status(). Does it intends to clear only AER error
>> status?
>>
>> - BIT 0: Correctable Error Detected
>> - BIT 1: Non-Fatal Error Detected
>> - BIT 2: Fatal Error Detected
>> - BIT 3: Unsupported Request Detected
>>
>> From PCIe spec, BIT 0-2 are logged for functions supporting Advanced
>> Error Handling.
>>
>> I am not sure if we should clear BIT 3, and also BIT 6 (Emergency Power
>> Reduction Detected) and in case a AER error.
>
> AFAIUI, bits 0 to 3 are what the PCIe r7.0 sec 6.2.1 calls
> "baseline capability" error reporting. They're supported
> even if AER is not supported.
>
> Bit 6 has nothing to do with this AFAICS.
Hi, Lukas,
Per PCIe r7.0 section 7.5.3.5:
**For Functions supporting Advanced Error Handling**, errors are logged
in this register regardless of the settings of the Uncorrectable Error
Mask register. Default value of this bit is 0b.
From this, it's clear that bits 0 to 2 are not logged unless AER is supported.
So, if dev->aer_cap is not true, there’s no need to clear bits 0 to 2.
This validates the dev->aer_cap sanity check in pcie_aer_is_native():
int pcie_aer_is_native(struct pci_dev *dev)
{
struct pci_host_bridge *host = pci_find_host_bridge(dev->bus);
if (!dev->aer_cap)
return 0;
return pcie_ports_native || host->native_aer;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(pcie_aer_is_native, "CXL");
Based on this, the introduction of pcie_aer_is_native() in the patch
seems reasonable and consistent with the PCIe specification.
Further, should we rename pcie_clear_device_status() back to
pci_aer_clear_device_status():
-void pcie_clear_device_status(struct pci_dev *dev)
+void pci_aer_clear_device_status(struct pci_dev *dev)
{
u16 sta;
pcie_capability_read_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVSTA, &sta);
- pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVSTA, sta);
+ /* Bits 0-2 are logged if AER is supported */
+ pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVSTA, sta & 0x7);
}
I am still uncertain whether bit 3 ("Unsupported Request Detected")
should be cleared in this function. It’s not directly tied to AER
capability.
I’d love to hear your thoughts, as well as @Bjorn’s, on both the renaming
suggestion and whether bit 3 should be cleared alongside bits 0 to 2.
Thanks.
Shuai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-24 3:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-15 2:41 [PATCH v6 0/5] PCI/AER: Report fatal errors of RCiEP and EP if link recoverd Shuai Xue
2025-10-15 2:41 ` [PATCH v6 1/5] PCI/DPC: Clarify naming for error port in DPC Handling Shuai Xue
2025-10-15 2:41 ` [PATCH v6 2/5] PCI/DPC: Run recovery on device that detected the error Shuai Xue
2025-10-15 2:41 ` [PATCH v6 3/5] PCI/AER: Report fatal errors of RCiEP and EP if link recoverd Shuai Xue
2025-10-20 10:10 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-10-20 12:58 ` Shuai Xue
2025-10-20 13:54 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-10-20 14:17 ` Shuai Xue
2025-10-20 14:24 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-10-20 15:20 ` Shuai Xue
2025-10-23 10:48 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-10-24 6:43 ` Shuai Xue
2025-12-16 8:07 ` Shuai Xue
2025-10-20 18:38 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2025-10-21 1:51 ` Shuai Xue
2025-10-15 2:41 ` [PATCH v6 4/5] PCI/ERR: Use pcie_aer_is_native() to check for native AER control Shuai Xue
2025-10-20 10:17 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-10-20 13:09 ` Shuai Xue
2025-10-20 13:58 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-10-20 14:45 ` Shuai Xue
2025-10-23 10:29 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-10-24 3:09 ` Shuai Xue [this message]
2025-10-24 3:14 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-10-24 3:38 ` Shuai Xue
2025-10-24 4:03 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-10-24 5:37 ` Shuai Xue
2025-10-20 18:43 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2025-10-15 2:41 ` [PATCH v6 5/5] PCI/AER: Clear both AER fatal and non-fatal status Shuai Xue
2025-10-20 18:44 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2025-10-21 1:33 ` Shuai Xue
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=1eaf1f94-e26b-4313-b6b7-51ad966fe28e@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=mahesh@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=oohall@gmail.com \
--cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=terry.bowman@amd.com \
--cc=tianruidong@linux.alibaba.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox