From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI/PTM: Do not enable PTM solely based on the capability existense
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 06:33:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251029053354.GV2912318@black.igk.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251028170639.GA1518773@bhelgaas>
On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 12:06:39PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 07:04:27AM +0100, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > It is not advisable to enable PTM solely based on the fact that the
> > capability exists. Instead there are separate bits in the capability
> > register that need to be set for the feature to be enabled for a given
> > component (this is suggestion from Intel PCIe folks):
> >
> > - PCIe Endpoint that has PTM capability must to declare requester
> > capable
> > - PCIe Switch Upstream Port that has PTM capability must declare
> > at least responder capable
> > - PCIe Root Port must declare root port capable.
> >
> > Currently we see following:
> >
> > pci 0000:01:00.0: [8086:5786] type 01 class 0x060400 PCIe Switch Upstream Port
> > pci 0000:01:00.0: PCI bridge to [bus 00]
> > pci 0000:01:00.0: bridge window [io 0x0000-0x0fff]
> > pci 0000:01:00.0: bridge window [mem 0x00000000-0x000fffff]
> > pci 0000:01:00.0: bridge window [mem 0x00000000-0x000fffff 64bit pref]
> > ...
> > pci 0000:01:00.0: PTM enabled, 4ns granularity
> > ...
> > pcieport 0000:00:07.0: AER: Multiple Uncorrectable (Non-Fatal) error message received from 0000:00:07.0
> > pcieport 0000:00:07.0: PCIe Bus Error: severity=Uncorrectable (Non-Fatal), type=Transaction Layer, (Receiver ID)
> > pcieport 0000:00:07.0: device [8086:e44e] error status/mask=00200000/00000000
> > pcieport 0000:00:07.0: [21] ACSViol (First)
> >
> > The 01:00.0 PCIe Upstream Port has this:
> >
> > Capabilities: [220 v1] Precision Time Measurement
> > PTMCap: Requester- Responder- Root-
> >
> > This happens because Linux sees the PTM capability and blindly enables
> > PTM which then causes the AER error to trigger.
> >
> > Fix this by enabling PTM only if the above described criteria is met.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > Previous version can be seen:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20251021104833.3729120-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com/
> >
> > Changes from the previous version:
> >
> > - Limit Switch Upstream Port only to Responder, not both Requester and
> > Responder.
> >
> > drivers/pci/pcie/ptm.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/ptm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/ptm.c
> > index 65e4b008be00..5ebb2edb4dec 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/ptm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/ptm.c
> > @@ -81,9 +81,24 @@ void pci_ptm_init(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > dev->ptm_granularity = 0;
> > }
> >
> > - if (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ||
> > - pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_UPSTREAM)
> > - pci_enable_ptm(dev, NULL);
> > + switch (pci_pcie_type(dev)) {
> > + case PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT:
> > + /*
> > + * Root Port must declare Root Capable if we want to
> > + * enable PTM for it.
> > + */
> > + if (dev->ptm_root)
> > + pci_enable_ptm(dev, NULL);
> > + break;
> > + case PCI_EXP_TYPE_UPSTREAM:
> > + /*
> > + * Switch Upstream Ports must at least declare Responder
> > + * Capable if we want to enable PTM for it.
> > + */
> > + if (cap & PCI_PTM_CAP_RES)
> > + pci_enable_ptm(dev, NULL);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > void pci_save_ptm_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > @@ -125,7 +140,7 @@ static int __pci_enable_ptm(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > {
> > u16 ptm = dev->ptm_cap;
> > struct pci_dev *ups;
> > - u32 ctrl;
> > + u32 cap, ctrl;
> >
> > if (!ptm)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -144,6 +159,14 @@ static int __pci_enable_ptm(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * PCIe Endpoint must declare Requester Capable before we can
> > + * enable PTM for it.
> > + */
> > + pci_read_config_dword(dev, ptm + PCI_PTM_CAP, &cap);
> > + if (!(cap & PCI_PTM_CAP_REQ))
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Isn't this going to prevent enabling PTM on Root Ports?
Isn't this function called only for Endpoints? Root Ports and Switch Ports
are enabled in pci_ptm_init() instead.
> > pci_read_config_dword(dev, ptm + PCI_PTM_CTRL, &ctrl);
> >
> > ctrl |= PCI_PTM_CTRL_ENABLE;
> > --
> > 2.50.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-29 5:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-28 6:04 [PATCH v2] PCI/PTM: Do not enable PTM solely based on the capability existense Mika Westerberg
2025-10-28 9:53 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-10-28 17:06 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-10-29 5:33 ` Mika Westerberg [this message]
2025-10-29 10:53 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-10-29 11:20 ` Mika Westerberg
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=20251029053354.GV2912318@black.igk.intel.com \
--to=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.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