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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CF4C77B75 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 10:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230374AbjEPKOG (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 May 2023 06:14:06 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45166 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230292AbjEPKOG (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 May 2023 06:14:06 -0400 Received: from bmailout1.hostsharing.net (bmailout1.hostsharing.net [IPv6:2a01:37:1000::53df:5f64:0]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95AB2E6A; Tue, 16 May 2023 03:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h08.hostsharing.net (h08.hostsharing.net [83.223.95.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "RapidSSL Global TLS RSA4096 SHA256 2022 CA1" (verified OK)) by bmailout1.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB0B930000347; Tue, 16 May 2023 12:14:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id 9FFB3260B59; Tue, 16 May 2023 12:14:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 12:14:03 +0200 From: Lukas Wunner To: Smita Koralahalli Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , oohall@gmail.com, Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , Yazen Ghannam , Fontenot Nathan Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PCI: pciehp: Add support for OS-First Hotplug and AER/DPC Message-ID: <20230516101403.GA3398@wunner.de> References: <20221101000719.36828-1-Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com> <20221101000719.36828-2-Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com> <20221104101536.GA11363@wunner.de> <20230510201937.GA11550@wunner.de> <20230511152326.GA16215@wunner.de> <579cb233-4827-2d03-56ad-1b807a189ba8@amd.com> <20230515193835.GA17526@wunner.de> <14ac1391-9ab9-d352-d3b1-ba6caae3d9df@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <14ac1391-9ab9-d352-d3b1-ba6caae3d9df@amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 01:56:25PM -0700, Smita Koralahalli wrote: > Could I please know, why do you think masking surprise down during > initialization would be a better approach than reading surprise down error > status on a DPC event? Because in both approaches we should be however > clearing status registers right? Masking seemed much simpler, more elegant, less code. I wasn't aware that masking the error merely suppresses the message to the Root Complex plus the resulting interrupt, but still logs the error. That's kind of a bummer, so I think your approach is fine and I've just sent you some review feedback on your patch. Thanks, Lukas