Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 14 Nov 2018 13:23:33 -0700
From:   Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
To:     Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com
Cc:     helgaas@kernel.org, oohall@gmail.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        mr.nuke.me@gmail.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        Austin.Bolen@dell.com, Shyam.Iyer@dell.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jonathan.derrick@intel.com,
        lukas@wunner.de, ruscur@russell.cc, sbobroff@linux.ibm.com,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI/MSI: Don't touch MSI bits when the PCI device is
 disconnected
Message-ID: <20181114202333.GE11416@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20181108224255.GA20619@kroah.com>
 <20d68e586fff4dcca5616d5056f6fc21@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
 <20181108225109.GA3023@kroah.com>
 <16bf9d14bc5f4a90b2b88dd2eb165186@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
 <5da8d8aa9f3818af649b1ac547bc4e6062626ddf.camel@gmail.com>
 <df85813c9860463d85f6c302dfe07b12@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
 <20181113050240.GA182139@google.com>
 <19136f44cd5c45e79bbef7e78a6bf332@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
 <20181114055956.GA144931@google.com>
 <1eb0fa27924f426992715684f5e63346@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1eb0fa27924f426992715684f5e63346@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 07:22:04PM +0000, Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com wrote:
> On 11/14/2018 12:00 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Just to make sure we're on the same page, can you point me to this
> > rule?  I do see that OSPM must request control of AER using _OSC
> > before it touches the AER registers.  What I don't see is the
> > connection between firmware-first and the AER registers.
> 
> ACPI 6.2 - 6.2.11.3, Table 6-197:
> 
> PCI Express Advanced Error Reporting control:
>   * The firmware sets this bit to 1 to grant control over PCI Express 
> Advanced Error Reporting. If firmware allows the OS control of this 
> feature, then in the context of the _OSC method it must ensure that 
> error messages are routed to device interrupts as described in the PCI 
> Express Base Specification[...]
> 
> Now I'm confused too:
>   * HEST -> __aer_firmware_first
> 	This is used for touching/not touching AER bits
>   * _OSC -> bridge->native_aer
> 	Used to enable/not enable AER portdrv service
> Maybe Keith knows better why we're doing it this way. From ACPI text, it 
> doesn't seem that control of AER would be tied to HEST entries, although 
> in practice, it is.

I'm not sure, that predates me.  HEST does have a FIRMWARE_FIRST flag, but
spec does not say anymore on relation to _OSC control or AER capability.
Nothing in PCIe spec either.

I also don't know why Linux disables the AER driver if only one
device has a FIRMWARE_FIRST HEST. Shouldn't that just be a per-device
decision?

> > The closest I can find is the "Enabled" field in the HEST PCIe
> > AER structures (ACPI v6.2, sec 18.3.2.4, .5, .6), where it says:
> > 
> >    If the field value is 1, indicates this error source is
> >    to be enabled.
> > 
> >    If the field value is 0, indicates that the error source
> >    is not to be enabled.
> > 
> >    If FIRMWARE_FIRST is set in the flags field, the Enabled
> >    field is ignored by the OSPM.
> > 
> > AFAICT, Linux completely ignores the Enabled field in these
> > structures.
> 
> I don't think ignoring the field is a problem:
>   * With FFS, OS should ignore it.
>   * Without FFS, we have control, and we get to make the decisions anyway.
> In the latter case we decide whether to use AER, independent of the crap 
> in ACPI. I'm not even sure why "Enabled" matters in native AER handling. 
> Probably one of the check-boxes in "Binary table designer's handbook"?

And why doesn't Linux do anything with _OSC response other than logging
it? If OS control wasn't granted, shouldn't that take priority over HEST?