From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0230171CD; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:48:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756313324; cv=none; b=lGJAoWBXc8MC2g1fWsve7mU25ewZzCv1Ah110qyvHtP3aNuhP3fB5Kn0yXi+ZNhd+2hDk8oFnmxTnTCMZZreA8qWlvwaMoNi9QRS3GzRLEIHOpd0wqf4sOX4nf63adHrvmYaX03mNl0lU1uaX1Wxu3Oj4P7vc57ddlGmB0ZmeCk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756313324; c=relaxed/simple; bh=T627dQnFkbXkLSa5363HBXG3v1Jx049xWiEkuFEady0=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=RJYw0g0CCDzI6vtDlRcXDdd5sz4heujrZAwRM/kdz3CwurhEz1JBKxaqsjt0KDa/zb/sPj0w/7ma7nIcDrGrvI/nulu1RSpw3t57Fq3FSQ0C7y/CWz+zO977Fon2J7NolR7zClQSBndJK+pV0iG3bcgc6DYCZkJU0HeXol+ne6U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=nwd33EBe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="nwd33EBe" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D978AC4CEEB; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:48:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1756313324; bh=T627dQnFkbXkLSa5363HBXG3v1Jx049xWiEkuFEady0=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=nwd33EBexB2Slm97ViVSM4LLt4exgGG0qfjVPGdEUvWYxKImQT8Aany8EolhkF2DI VfNFp9gHe6X3YJK+y8JvMwxf7Jtn78HLttnojga+/K7hDDtHYl1alhxJF5EzEIULwG zQoM6IZifTEVcNNd7yHYq06404jCvRU1GBb2DCuchImnW5/lDDMPXSA3wV9twkpyHe vz4NqYt5h8JnfVXo/rUasH/9SE+UdYvJj1VXKigI9dkQOPobVnKLFAVyU4iLzYk0t5 pCHBttbs2z+wTu/4O28sf6b55S/9TP6kgLtue/okeT0yJuTaqKAz9BmYbqpU5vYSjv m9PSMDXxjq3RA== Message-ID: <5cf568ac801b967365679737774a6c59475fd594.camel@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 00/22] Type2 device basic support From: PJ Waskiewicz To: alejandro.lucero-palau@amd.com, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, edward.cree@amd.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, dave.jiang@intel.com Cc: Alejandro Lucero Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 09:48:43 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20250624141355.269056-1-alejandro.lucero-palau@amd.com> References: <20250624141355.269056-1-alejandro.lucero-palau@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-1.fc42) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Tue, 2025-06-24 at 15:13 +0100, alejandro.lucero-palau@amd.com wrote: Hi Alejandro, > From: Alejandro Lucero >=20 > v17 changes: (Dan Williams review) > =C2=A0- use devm for cxl_dev_state allocation > =C2=A0- using current cxl struct for checking capability registers found > by > =C2=A0=C2=A0 the driver. > =C2=A0- simplify dpa initialization without a mailbox not supporting pmem > =C2=A0- add cxl_acquire_endpoint for protection during initialization > =C2=A0- add callback/action to cxl_create_region for a driver notified > about cxl > =C2=A0=C2=A0 core kernel modules removal. > =C2=A0- add sfc function to disable CXL-based PIO buffers if such a > callback > =C2=A0=C2=A0 is invoked. > =C2=A0- Always manage a Type2 created region as private not allowing DAX. >=20 I've been following the patches here since your initial RFC. What platform are you testing these on out of curiosity? I've tried pulling the v16 patches into my test environment, and on CXL 2.0 hosts that I have access to, the patches did not work when trying to hook up a Type 2 device. Most of it centered around many of the CXL host registers you try poking not existing. I do have CXL-capable BIOS firmware on these hosts, but I'm questioning that either there's still missing firmware, or the patches are trying to touch something that doesn't exist. I'm working on rebasing to the v17 patches to see if this resolves what I'm seeing. But it's a bit of a lift, so I figured I'd ask what you're testing on before burning more time. Eventually I'd like to either give a Tested-by or shoot back some amended patches based on testing. But I've not been able to get that far yet... Cheers, -PJ