RE: Supermicro X9SRL-F - channel enumeration error & ACPI/firmware bug question

Justin Piszcz
2012-11-29T08:55:37Z

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Hancock [mailto:hancockrwd@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:55 PM
To: Justin Piszcz
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas; Bruno Prémont; support@supermicro.com;
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Dan Williams
Subject: Re: Supermicro X9SRL-F - channel enumeration error & ACPI/firmware
bug question

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Hancock [mailto:hancockrwd@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:35 PM
> To: Justin Piszcz
> Cc: 'Bjorn Helgaas'; 'Bruno Prémont'; support@supermicro.com;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; 'Dan Williams'
> Subject: Re: Supermicro X9SRL-F - channel enumeration error &
ACPI/firmware
> bug question
>
>
> What does lspci -vv show on that controller? Not sure what actual
> chipset that controller is, but there's a known issue with some Marvell
> 6Gbps SATA controllers with DMAR enabled - it seems the device issues
> memory read/write requests from the wrong PCI function ID and the IOMMU
> rightly denies access as the function listed in the requests doesn't
> have any mapping to that memory. I don't think there's presently a
> workaround other than disabling DMAR. We could (and likely should) be
> detecting that device and adding some kind of quirk for it.
>
> That sounds likely...
> It is shown below:
>
> Card name: HighPoint Rocket 620 Dual Port SATA 6 Gbps PCI Express 2.0 Host
> Adapter
>
> lspci -vv output:
>
> 84:00.0 SATA controller: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88SE9123 PCIe SATA
> 6.0 Gb/s controller (rev 11) (prog-if 01 [AHCI 1.0])
> Subsystem: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88SE9123 PCIe SATA 6.0 Gb/s
> controller

Yeah, that's one of those controllers I think. But I can't tell from
the bit of the dmesg you posted exactly what's going on. Can you post
a full boot log from having the card installed and some drive attached
(by putting the boot drive on another controller for example)?

>> ==> Further issues with the X9SRL-F -- does this board support ASPM or is
>> this a Linux/ASPM implementation issue?
>> [ 0.632170] pci0000:ff: ACPI _OSC support notification failed,
> disabling
>> PCIe ASPM
>> [ 0.632239] pci0000:ff: Unable to request _OSC control (_OSC support
>> mask: 0x08)
>
> What's the full dmesg from this machine (or is it already posted
somewhere)?
>
> It is now available here:
> http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/20121128/dmesg.txt

> Is that the same boot log? It doesn't have this error in it.

Yes, the error is here: (its towards the bottom)

[ 7.973015] ata14.00: qc timeout (cmd 0xa1)
[ 8.472120] ata14.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x4)
[ 9.275922] ata14: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
[ 19.260667] ata14.00: qc timeout (cmd 0xa1)
[ 19.759828] ata14.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x4)
[ 19.760451] ata14: limiting SATA link speed to 1.5 Gbps
[ 20.566598] ata14: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
[ 50.521078] ata14.00: qc timeout (cmd 0xa1)
[ 51.020880] ata14.00: failed to IDENTIFY (I/O error, err_mask=0x4)
[ 51.824664] ata14: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
[ 51.824682] dmar: DRHD: handling fault status reg 502
[ 51.824686] dmar: DMAR:[DMA Read] Request device [04:00.0] fault addr 0
[ 51.824686] DMAR:[fault reason 06] PTE Read access is not set
[ 52.338871] EXT3-fs (sdb2): error: couldn't mount because of unsupported
optional features (240)
[ 52.348938] EXT2-fs (sdb2): error: couldn't mount because of unsupported
optional features (240)
[ 52.360314] EXT4-fs (sdb2): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode.
Opts: (null)

The system does not boot when the SSD is on that SATA controller.
The error we were trying to get earlier (kernel panic)-- I cannot reproduce
that anymore after adding nouveau for whatever reason.
So to re-cap it boots now with nothing connected to the controller but the
controller is non-workable/useless, as shown above.
When you put the SSD on it, it cannot mount rootfs.

Justin.