From: Graham Whyte <grwhyte@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, shyamsaini@linux.microsoft.com,
code@tyhicks.com, Okaya@kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] PCI: Reduce FLR delay to 10ms for MSFT devices
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 10:03:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4a176d9f-3a05-4eb4-b64d-b6b7f5ed2413@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2dfbbd15-c03a-45b6-99a6-fa36772676bc@linux.microsoft.com>
On 6/18/2025 9:42 AM, Graham Whyte wrote:
>
>
> On 6/16/2025 2:05 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 12:02:41PM -0700, Graham Whyte wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2025 8:33 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 09:41:45AM -0700, Graham Whyte wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/2025 11:31 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 01:08:21PM -0700, Graham Whyte wrote:
>>>>>>> We can ask our HW engineers to implement function readiness but we need
>>>>>>> to be able to support exiting products, hence why posting it as a quirk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your report sounds like it works perfectly fine, it's just that you
>>>>>> want to reduce the delay. For that you'll need to stick to the standard
>>>>>> methods instead of adding quirks, which are for buggy hardware that does
>>>>>> not otherwise work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bjorn, what would you recommend as next steps here?
>>>>
>>>> This is a tough call and I don't pretend to have an obvious answer. I
>>>> understand the desire to improve performance. On the other hand, PCI
>>>> has been successful over the long term because devices adhere to
>>>> standardized ways of doing things, which makes generic software
>>>> possible. Quirks degrade that story, of course, especially when there
>>>> is an existing standardized solution that isn't being used. I'm not
>>>> at all happy about vendors that decide against the standard solution
>>>> and then ask OS folks to do extra work to compensate.
>>>
>>> Should someone want to implement readiness time reporting down the road,
>>> they'll need to do the same work as patch 1 in this series (making the
>>> flr delay a configurable parameter).
>>
>> Sure. That's a trivial change. The problem is the quirk itself.
>>
>> The Readiness Time Reporting Extended Capability is read-only with no
>> control bits in it so it requires no actual logic in the device.
>> Maybe you can just implement that capability with a firmware change on
>> the device and add the corresponding Linux support for it.
>
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> We checked with our HW folks, it's not possible for us to update the pci
> register components with this particular card, they are read only. What
> are your thoughts on the sysfs approach mentioned in the previous email?
>
> Thanks,
> Graham
Hi Bjorn, just wanted to follow up on this here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-02 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-11 0:05 [PATCH v3 0/2] PCI: Reduce FLR delay to 10ms for MSFT devices grwhyte
2025-06-11 0:05 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] PCI: Add flr_delay parameter to pci_dev struct grwhyte
2025-06-13 10:23 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2025-08-06 22:06 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-06-11 0:05 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] PCI: Reduce FLR delay to 10ms for MSFT devices grwhyte
2025-06-13 10:31 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2025-06-11 3:27 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] " Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-11 7:23 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-06-11 20:08 ` Graham Whyte
2025-06-12 6:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-12 16:41 ` Graham Whyte
2025-06-13 15:33 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-06-16 19:02 ` Graham Whyte
2025-06-16 21:05 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-06-18 16:42 ` Graham Whyte
2025-07-02 17:03 ` Graham Whyte [this message]
2025-06-13 11:42 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-06-13 13:45 ` Lukas Wunner
2025-06-13 13:56 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
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=4a176d9f-3a05-4eb4-b64d-b6b7f5ed2413@linux.microsoft.com \
--to=grwhyte@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=Okaya@kernel.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=cassel@kernel.org \
--cc=code@tyhicks.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shyamsaini@linux.microsoft.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).