Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] PCI: Allow ATS to be always on for CXL.cache capable devices

[Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 02:41:22PM -0700, Dan Williams (nvidia) wrote:
> > +static bool pci_cxl_ats_always_on(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	int offset;
> > +	u16 cap;
> > +
> > +	offset = pci_find_dvsec_capability(pdev, PCI_VENDOR_ID_CXL,
> > +					   PCI_DVSEC_CXL_DEVICE);
> > +	if (!offset)
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	if (pci_read_config_word(pdev, offset + PCI_DVSEC_CXL_CAP, &cap))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	return cap & PCI_DVSEC_CXL_CACHE_CAPABLE;
[...]
> Apologies for coming to this late and forgive me if the following has
> already been asked and answered. Why not check for actual CXL.cache
> protocol on the wire being present?

Actually it would make the patch smaller. The thing is that this
is_cxl property wasn't added when I started the series. So, it's
not using it. :)

> @@ -1733,9 +1733,8 @@ static void set_pcie_cxl(struct pci_dev *dev)
>  	pci_read_config_word(dev, dvsec + PCI_DVSEC_CXL_FLEXBUS_PORT_STATUS,
>  			     &cap);
>  
> -	dev->is_cxl = FIELD_GET(PCI_DVSEC_CXL_FLEXBUS_PORT_STATUS_CACHE, cap) ||
> -		FIELD_GET(PCI_DVSEC_CXL_FLEXBUS_PORT_STATUS_MEM, cap);
> -
> +	dev->is_cxl_cache = FIELD_GET(PCI_DVSEC_CXL_FLEXBUS_PORT_STATUS_CACHE, cap);
> +	dev->is_cxl_mem = FIELD_GET(PCI_DVSEC_CXL_FLEXBUS_PORT_STATUS_MEM, cap);

One caveat is that:

Here it checks the cap from:
	PCI_DVSEC_CXL_FLEXBUS_PORT_STATUS (0xE) via
		PCI_DVSEC_CXL_FLEXBUS_PORT_STATUS (0x7)

On the other hand, mine checks from:
	PCI_DVSEC_CXL_CAP (0xA) via
		PCI_DVSEC_CXL_DEVICE (0x0)

The spec mentions in 8.2.1.3.1 DVSEC Flex Bus Port Capability: "
  Note: The Mem_Capable, IO_Capable, and Cache_Capable fields are
  also present in the DVSEC Flex Bus for the device [which is the
  legacy name for DVSEC 0x0]. This allows for future scalability
  where multiple devices, each with potentially different
  capabilities, may be populated behind a single Port.
"

Not arguing that set_pcie_cxl() is wrong, but I am not sure if there
would be any side effect to rely on the "legacy name" over DVSEC 0x0.

Is there any CXL expert who can help confirm?

Thanks!
Nicolin