From: Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@intel.com>
To: "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
"jonathan.derrick@linux.dev" <jonathan.derrick@linux.dev>,
James Puthukattukaran <james.puthukattukaran@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: pciehp: Quirk to ignore spurious DLLSC when off
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 13:05:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8d75cd15-e1e5-986f-73e0-7fb991afb165@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210824004101.GA67273@otc-nc-03>
On 8/23/21 6:41 PM, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 12:49:19PM -0600, Derrick, Jonathan wrote:
>> From: James Puthukattukaran <james.puthukattukaran@oracle.com>
>>
>> When a specific x8 CEM card is bifurcated into x4x4 mode, and the
>> upstream ports both support hotplugging on each respective x4 device, a
>> slot management system for the CEM card requires both x4 devices to be
>> sysfs removed from the OS before it can safely turn-off physical power.
>
> sysfs removed from the OS seems a bit confusing.. Do you mean removed via
> sysfs by echo 0 > power?
Yes it seems to be related to slot power and not just virtual removal
>
>> The implications are that Slot Control will display Powered Off status
>> for the device where the device is actually powered until both ports
>> have powered off.
>>
>> When power is removed from the first half, real power and link remains
>> active while waiting for the second half to have power removed. When
>> power is then removed from the second half, the first half starts
>> shutdown sequence and will trigger a DLLSC event. This is misinterpreted
>> as an enabling event and causes the first half to be re-enabled.
>>
>> The spurious enable can be resolved by ignoring link status change
>> events when no link is active when in the off state. This patch adds a
>> quirk for the card.
>>
>> Acked-by: Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: James Puthukattukaran <james.puthukattukaran@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> v1->v2: Device-specific quirk
>>
>> drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c | 7 +++++++
>> drivers/pci/quirks.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/pci.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c
>> index 529c34808440..db41f78bfac8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c
>> @@ -225,6 +225,7 @@ void pciehp_handle_disable_request(struct controller *ctrl)
>> void pciehp_handle_presence_or_link_change(struct controller *ctrl, u32 events)
>> {
>> int present, link_active;
>> + struct pci_dev *pdev = ctrl->pcie->port;
>>
>> /*
>> * If the slot is on and presence or link has changed, turn it off.
>> @@ -265,6 +266,12 @@ void pciehp_handle_presence_or_link_change(struct controller *ctrl, u32 events)
>> cancel_delayed_work(&ctrl->button_work);
>> fallthrough;
>> case OFF_STATE:
>> + if (pdev->shared_pcc_and_link_slot &&
>> + (events & PCI_EXP_SLTSTA_DLLSC) && !link_active) {
>
> Is it !link_active? Based on the explanation, until we turn off both slots
> you would see link is still active correct?
My understanding is the internal link is active but link_active shows negative
status while the one side is faking being 'powered off'.
Then if a DLLSC occurs while the slot is already OFF_STATE and !link_active, I
believe we can assume it was previously !link_active as well and it's an event
from the other side.
>
>> + mutex_unlock(&ctrl->state_lock);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-26 19:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-23 18:49 [PATCH v2] PCI: pciehp: Quirk to ignore spurious DLLSC when off Jon Derrick
2021-08-23 21:19 ` kernel test robot
2021-08-24 0:37 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-08-24 0:41 ` Raj, Ashok
2021-08-26 19:05 ` Jon Derrick [this message]
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=8d75cd15-e1e5-986f-73e0-7fb991afb165@intel.com \
--to=jonathan.derrick@intel.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=james.puthukattukaran@oracle.com \
--cc=jonathan.derrick@linux.dev \
--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