Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757115AbaAIUp4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:45:56 -0500 Received: from ch1ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.181.182]:29833 "EHLO ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753095AbaAIUpq (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:45:46 -0500 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -4 X-BigFish: VPS-4(z579ehz98dI9371Ic89bh154dI542I1432I4015Izz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h2189h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzc2hz1de098h8275bh8275dh1de097hz2fh109h2a8h839h93fhd24hf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah224fh1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1fe8h1ff5h2216h22d0h2336h9a9j1155h) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10009001)(13464003)(54534003)(24454002)(164054003)(377454003)(51704005)(189002)(199002)(69226001)(81542001)(76796001)(87936001)(92566001)(87266001)(2656002)(81342001)(80976001)(81686001)(85306002)(81816001)(74876001)(74706001)(76786001)(1941001)(49866001)(47736001)(47976001)(4396001)(50986001)(54316002)(66066001)(33646001)(54356001)(65816001)(76482001)(51856001)(53806001)(63696002)(80022001)(46102001)(56776001)(79102001)(59766001)(77982001)(85852003)(83072002)(90146001)(56816005)(76576001)(19580405001)(83322001)(19580395003)(31966008)(74662001)(74366001)(74502001)(47446002)(74316001)(24736002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101;SCL:1;SRVR:DM2PR05MB525;H:DM2PR05MB671.namprd05.prod.outlook.com;CLIP:66.129.239.12;FPR:;RD:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en; From: Rajat Jain To: Rajat Jain , Bjorn Helgaas , Rajat Jain CC: Rajat Jain , Kenji Kaneshige , Alex Williamson , Yijing Wang , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Yinghai Lu , Guenter Roeck , Yinghai Lu Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 4/8] pciehp: Don't disable the link permanently, during removal Thread-Topic: [PATCH v3 4/8] pciehp: Don't disable the link permanently, during removal Thread-Index: AQHO+2O+glESpPkjFkO6kKuv5WeLEZp4gVEKgAEwLtCAA07WEA== Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 20:45:34 +0000 Message-ID: References: <52B0AEAD.6050604@gmail.com> <20131218010207.GC15119@google.com> <4b24688d857e432eb7ecf9095c95b742@DM2PR05MB671.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <4b24688d857e432eb7ecf9095c95b742@DM2PR05MB671.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.12] x-forefront-prvs: 008663486A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id s09KjxJV004763 Hi Bjorn, > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-pci- > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Rajat Jain > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:21 AM > To: Bjorn Helgaas; Rajat Jain > Cc: Rajat Jain; Kenji Kaneshige; Alex Williamson; Yijing Wang; linux- > pci@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Yinghai Lu; Guenter > Roeck; Yinghai Lu > Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 4/8] pciehp: Don't disable the link permanently, > during removal > > Hello Bjorn / Yinghai, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:bhelgaas@google.com] > > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 4:04 PM > > To: Rajat Jain > > Cc: Rajat Jain; Kenji Kaneshige; Alex Williamson; Yijing Wang; linux- > > pci@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Yinghai Lu; Guenter > > Roeck; Rajat Jain; Yinghai Lu > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] pciehp: Don't disable the link > > permanently, during removal > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Rajat Jain > > wrote: > > > Hello Bjorn, > > > > > > Just checking on the fate of this patch set... > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas > > wrote: > > >> [+cc yinghai@kernel.org (seems to be Yinghai's preferred email] > > >> > > >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:06:05PM -0800, Rajat Jain wrote: > > >>> We need future link up events for hot-add, thus don't disable the > > >>> link permanently during device removal. Also, remove the static > > >>> functions that are now left unused. > > >> > > >> The changelog should mention that this reverts part of 2debd9289997 > > ("PCI: > > >> pciehp: Disable/enable link during slot power off/on"). > > > > > > Sure. Do you want me to submit another patch set (bumping up the > > > version) with this change log, or you'd want to add this change log > > > while merging? > > > > > >> > > >> Yinghai, can you tell us whether this is an issue on your systems? > > > > > > As Yinghai confirms further down this thread, his issue was > > > confirmed by Intel to be a bug in the repeater chip. > > > ---------------------------------- > > > Yinghai writes: > > >> According to HW guys and Intel, that should be bug of repeater. > > >> > > > --------------------------------- > > > I don't know about the details of his scenario, except that when > > > the adapter was disabled the repeater kept on flapping the link up & > > > down (and hence disabling the link solved the problem then). Yinghai > > > couldn't test, but I believe with this patch even if we disable > > > presence detect interrupt, the "adapter present / no present" > > > messages would (rightly) convert to "Link Up / Link Down" messages > > > (since the repeater keeps on flapping the link). > > > > > > Since it is a platform specific bug, I'm not sure what can be done > > > to remove those messages except may be reduce the verbosity? If > > > you'd like I could change all the INFO messages to DBG messages. > > > > Even if it's a defect in a particular piece of hardware, I don't want > > to regress on that hardware, even if the regression is just extra > > messages that we didn't see before. > > > > I think ideally we would add some sort of quirk for that hardware so > > it works just as well as it does today. I think extra messages will > > lead to a bug reports from users. > > Sure, I can do that. I think what the quirk would have to do is that for > that particular platform, don't enable the link-state based hotplug. > (Since link-state hotplug will not work if we disable the link > permanently as we do today on card removal). > > But the question is how to determine that the quirk has to be applied? I > think the objective is to apply the quirk to the platforms that have a > "PCIe repeater". Since this does not depend on a PCI device / vendor ID, > and I think the PCIe repeater is probably not even visible to the pciehp > or the PCI subsystem, how do I determine that the quirk has to be > applied? Any ideas on how do I identify the platforms that may have this problem? Thanks, Rajat > > If (hw_has_pcie_repeater) > Don't use link-state hotplug (and disable link permanently during > card removal) Else > Use link-state hotplug (and don't disable the link permanently) > > > Yinghai: Since I do not have that hardware, I will need some help in > testing the patch with the quirk. I was wondering if you'd still have > that hardware around and would be able to help me with testing? > > Thanks, > > Rajat >  {.n + +% lzwm b 맲 r zX \ ) w*jg  ݢj/ z ޖ 2 ޙ > & )ߡ a   G h  j:+v w ٥ ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?