From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Cc: "Pali Rohár" <pali@kernel.org>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
"Bharat Kumar Gogada" <bharat.kumar.gogada@xilinx.com>,
"Michal Simek" <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] PCI/portdrv: Add option to setup IRQs for platform-specific Service Errors
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2022 13:39:18 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220608183918.GA409625@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f3731342-3ddb-1eff-3a6e-51bb1defc469@denx.de>
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 01:47:12PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On 31.05.22 23:31, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 10:32:06AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Monday 30 May 2022 10:18:41 Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > > On 28.05.22 02:09, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > In subject line, I assume you mean "System Errors" instead of "Service
> > > > > Errors"?
> > > >
> > > > Background: I took over submitting this patchset from Bharat. Here his
> > > > last revision:
> > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2960164.html
> >
> > Here's the link to the more usable lore archive:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/1542206878-24587-1-git-send-email-bharat.kumar.gogada@xilinx.com/
> >
> > > > To answer your question I personally think too, that "System Errors" is
> > > > more appropriate than "Service Errors". But still this patchset replaces
> > > > or better enhances the already present pcie_init_service_irqs() by a
> > > > platform-specific version. I can only suspect, that this is the
> > > > reasoning for this "Service" naming.
> > >
> > > Hello! Based on the below text "Here the quote from Bharat's original
> > > cover letter:" I think that the better naming should be: "Service
> > > interrupts". Because it adds support for interrupts from PCIe services
> > > like AER, PME or HP. Only AER are errors, other IRQs are just services.
> >
> > The question I'm trying to answer is whether this series concerns the
> > "System Error" mechanism or the "Error Interrupt" mechanism. We
> > should figure out which one this is and use the correct name.
> >
> > The sec 6.2.4.1.2 cited below clearly refers to the AER Root Error
> > Command register, which controls interrupt generation via INTx, MSI,
> > or MSI-X, i.e., the standard "Error Interrupt" shown on the RIGHT side
> > of Figure 6-3 in sec 6.2.6.
> >
> > The "System Error" signaling on the LEFT side of Figure 6-3 would be
> > controlled by the Root Control register in the PCIe capability.
>
> "System Error" is probably incorrect. You've already stated, that
> these error bits are generally disabled in the PCI_EXP_RTCTL reg in
> aer_enable_rootport():
>
> /* Disable system error generation in response to error messages */
> pcie_capability_clear_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_RTCTL,
> SYSTEM_ERROR_INTR_ON_MESG_MASK);
>
> This leaves "Error Interrupt", but I might be wrong here.
>
> > It should be easy to use setpci to set/clear these two sets of enable
> > bits and figure out which path is of interest here.
>
> Here the value of the PCI_EXP_RTCTL register at runtime:
> # setpci -v -s 00:00.0 CAP_EXP+0x1c.w
> 0000:00:00.0 (cap 10 @60) @7c = 0010
>
> So all "System Error" enable bits are disabled.
>
> Please let me know if I should make some other "setpci" tests.
I assume you have verified that neither PCI_EXP_RTCTL nor
PCI_ERR_ROOT_COMMAND controls these interrupts. (I guess it's possible
that PCI_ERR_ROOT_COR/UNCOR_RCV might be ANDed with the platform bits,
but I think there are other potential interrupt sources, too.)
So I think we need a description that is clearly not related to the
PCIe spec terminology, e.g., "platform-specific PCIe interrupts".
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 08:58:33AM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > > > > From: Bharat Kumar Gogada <bharat.kumar.gogada@xilinx.com>
> >
> > > > > > As per section 6.2.4.1.2, 6.2.6 in PCIe r4.0 (and later versions),
> > > > > > platform-specific System Errors like AER can be delivered via platform-
> > > > > > specific interrupt lines.
> >
> > > > > ...
> > > > > 6.7.3.4 ("Software Notification of Hot-Plug Events") talks about PME
> > > > > and Hot-Plug Event interrupts, but these aren't errors, and I only see
> > > > > signaling via INTx, MSI, or MSI-X. Is there provision for a different
> > > > > method?
> > > >
> > > > Here the quote from Bharat's original cover letter:
> > > > "Some platforms have dedicated IRQ lines for PCIe services like AER/PME
> > > > etc. The root complex on these platform will use these seperate IRQ
> > > > lines to report AER/PME etc., interrupts and will not generate MSI/
> > > > MSI-X/INTx interrupts for these services.
> > >
> > > This is the best explanation of this change.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, "dedicated IRQ lines for services like AER/PME
> > etc" would violate the PCIe spec.
>
> AFAICT this is the case here.
>
> > That's OK, we can work around that
> > sort of thing, but it needs to be clearly called out as some kind of
> > quirk and not mixed in with things like System Error signaling, which
> > is allowed to be platform-specific.
>
> Agreed. So how to process with this patchset? Should I reword the
> patch subject line (and the commit text and comments) to something like:
>
> Add option to setup IRQs for platform-specific Error Interrupt ?
Yes. But "Error Interrupt" should not be capitalized because that
implies a proper noun defined by the PCIe spec. And I thought there
were potentially non-error interrupts coming, too.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-08 18:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-14 7:58 [PATCH v4 0/2] Add support to register platform service IRQ Stefan Roese
2022-01-14 7:58 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] PCI/portdrv: Add option to setup IRQs for platform-specific Service Errors Stefan Roese
2022-01-14 11:46 ` Pali Rohár
2022-05-28 0:09 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-05-30 8:18 ` Stefan Roese
2022-05-30 8:32 ` Pali Rohár
2022-05-31 21:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-05-31 22:57 ` Pali Rohár
2022-06-01 11:47 ` Stefan Roese
2022-06-01 11:53 ` Pali Rohár
2022-06-08 18:39 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2022-01-14 7:58 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] PCI: xilinx-nwl: Add method to init_platform_service_irqs hook Stefan Roese
2022-01-14 11:48 ` Pali Rohár
2022-01-14 12:13 ` Stefan Roese
2022-01-14 12:34 ` Pali Rohár
2022-01-14 17:03 ` Stefan Roese
2022-03-24 16:52 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] Add support to register platform service IRQ Stefan Roese
2022-03-31 15:30 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-04-01 6:28 ` Stefan Roese
2022-04-01 12:35 ` Bjorn Helgaas
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=20220608183918.GA409625@bhelgaas \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=bharat.kumar.gogada@xilinx.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.simek@xilinx.com \
--cc=pali@kernel.org \
--cc=sr@denx.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).