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 mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C13C433EF for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:12:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93815606A5 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:12:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 93815606A5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HZvD80lM9z3cJt for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 04:12:08 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=Td5mGM7w; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=helgaas@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=Td5mGM7w; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HZvCT6jmnz2yHT for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 04:11:33 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4352461A0A; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:11:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1634836291; bh=Q03u5Qex8eKAItP0Dg2YZHdrmPOdGUpwH80kTAfzZxI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=Td5mGM7w14Slx9FIzv7BOb28GJoHrB9ns/c4MS4UE5lQCExsNbqqBd7gbnQBfGK6d wCxieyrBp59hT2zKHPX6adnJws0vsRC9Sz+bubNuDJ6BlWOBOwuh6OWp92vMmSALXk ET8S21c0NbukPIMV1IoLs4s0V9meVjRT+WnoP5VUEHnqTr3J8/jQQRxcEAAym2TPR9 YK+2Mxgf1DT4IBJEH8GBr8iGvsGquy5OFgog5NihLEVIZHqbw9WvybbrpeL0RXJ7cm csOEwYACYrD8Q33ogHm2srHLkyKi5Z1cLiH/+8dNAXVEDbUINAVTuB6JcJ3iBZTlBX C2fA8AKo22srQ== Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:11:30 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Naveen Naidu Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/8] PCI/DPC: Converge EDR and DPC Path of clearing AER registers Message-ID: <20211021171130.GA2701430@bhelgaas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211021165330.lcqajtwej4s7oadt@theprophet> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Oza Pawandeep , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Sinan Kaya , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Keith Busch , oohall@gmail.com, bhelgaas@google.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:23:30PM +0530, Naveen Naidu wrote: > On 20/10, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 10:48:12PM +0530, Naveen Naidu wrote: > > > In EDR path, AER status registers are cleared irrespective of whether > > > the error was an RP PIO or unmasked uncorrectable error. But in DPC, the > > > AER status registers are cleared only when it's an unmasked uncorrectable > > > error. > > > > > > This leads to two different behaviours for the same task (handling of > > > DPC errors) in FFS systems and when native OS has control. > > > > FFS? > > Firmware First Systems I assumed that's what it was, but it's helpful to use the same terms used by the specs to make things easier to find. I don't think it's actually the case that "Firmware First" necessary applies to the entire system, since the ACPI FIRMWARE_FIRST flag is a per-error source thing, not a per-system thing.