linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
To: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, miltonm@bga.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: disable MSI using new interface if possible
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 14:01:24 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1299207684.3630.76.camel@concordia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1299202862-10682-1-git-send-email-nacc@us.ibm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2336 bytes --]

On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 17:41 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 04.03.2011 [12:05:29 +1100], Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 11:39 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On upcoming hardware, we have a PCI adapter with two functions, one of
> > > which uses MSI and the other uses MSI-X. This adapter, when MSI is
> > > disabled using the "old" firmware interface (RTAS_CHANGE_FN), still
> > > signals an MSI-X interrupt and triggers an EEH. We are working with the
> > > vendor to ensure that the hardware is not at fault, but if we use the
> > > "new" interface (RTAS_CHANGE_MSI_FN) to disable MSI, we also
> > > automatically disable MSI-X and the adapter does not appear to signal
> > > any stray MSI-X interrupt.
> > 
> > It seems this could also be a firmware bug, have we heard anything from
> > them? PAPR explicitly says that RTAS_CHANGE_FN (function=1) should
> > disable MSI _and_ MSI-X (R1???7.3.10.5.1???1).
> 
> We're tracking that down too. I think the fact that the interrupt is
> coming in is a hardware bug in this particular adapter.
> 
> I'm looking at PAPR again and I see what might be a contradiction:
> 
> 7.3.10.5.1: "To removing all MSIs, set the Requested Number of
> Interrupts to zero."
> 
> Table 71: "Function ... 1: Request to set to a new number of MSI or
> MSI-X (platform choice) interrupts (including set to 0)"
> 
> It seems like the Table claims that using RTAS_CHANGE_FN with 0, could
> change only MSI or MSI-X and still be not a bug?

Yeah I guess you could read it that way, though I think that would be a
bug.

The idea is that it chooses for you whether it uses MSI or MSI-X. So the
only sane semantic is that when deconfiguring it deconfigures either,
ie. both, kinds.

Looking closer at your patch, now I don't understand :)

+       /*
+        * disabling MSI with the explicit interface also disables MSI-X
+        */
+       if (rtas_change_msi(pdn, RTAS_CHANGE_MSI_FN, 0) != 0) {


So we first disable using function 3, which should:

        3: Request to set to a new number of MSI interrupts (including set to 0)

Which does not mention MSI-X at all, implying it has no effect on them.
Which contradicts what you see, and the comment in the code?

So I think I'm not sure what's going on here :)

cheers

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2011-03-04  3:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-03-03 19:39 [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: disable MSI using new interface if possible Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-03-03 19:39 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/msi: clarify call to check_req_msi{,x} Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-03-03 19:44 ` [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: disable MSI using new interface if possible Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-03-04  1:05 ` Michael Ellerman
2011-03-04  1:41   ` [PATCH] " Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-03-04  3:01     ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
2011-03-04  7:24       ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-03-08  5:34         ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-03-09 22:54           ` Michael Ellerman
2011-03-04  3:06     ` Michael Ellerman
2011-03-04  3:29       ` Joe Perches
2011-03-04 11:13         ` Florian Mickler
2011-03-09 23:12         ` Michael Ellerman
2011-03-10  0:28           ` Joe Perches
2011-03-10  0:46             ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2011-03-10  3:35             ` Michael Ellerman
2011-03-10  3:45               ` Joe Perches
2011-03-10  7:04                 ` Florian Mickler

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=1299207684.3630.76.camel@concordia \
    --to=michael@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=miltonm@bga.com \
    --cc=nacc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    /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).