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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns
 AER
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
Cc:     Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com, mr.nuke.me@gmail.com,
        baicar.tyler@gmail.com, Austin.Bolen@dell.com, Shyam.Iyer@dell.com,
        lukas@wunner.de, bhelgaas@google.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        lenb@kernel.org, ruscur@russell.cc, sbobroff@linux.ibm.com,
        oohall@gmail.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
References: <20181119181051.GA26707@localhost.localdomain>
 <c0d6535f-324b-557a-3d0e-ccec070459a7@kernel.org>
 <3f923367-2cc1-c0d6-bca6-bf9a03d1b9ca@gmail.com>
 <ef6b19de-dd18-850f-4db9-8ab71b975e94@kernel.org>
 <bb575cfdcd0a4c50b489fb16eccfbff2@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
 <84013a8a-287d-d700-6710-91cc35f507c8@kernel.org>
 <9c9531c7efb846438f03f744b9afc466@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
 <3b18a9fa-7bdd-0fb4-285d-4efb454be50a@kernel.org>
 <e86f04ef8c054d61969862a6e7b72d0d@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
 <314e59da-48e1-545b-3ee9-6e5056b90fd9@kernel.org>
 <20181120214243.GG26707@localhost.localdomain>
From:   Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <bace940c-70d9-6631-9818-43338d194327@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:28:49 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181120214243.GG26707@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 11/20/2018 4:42 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> How does that work? If the OS takes control, it sets up MSIs that FW don't
> react to, and disables system errors through PCIe Root Control. Aren't
> those sys errs the mechanism FW knows it has something to do, which
> means the OS can effectively fence it off?

I think this is all implementation detail and doesn't necessarily apply
to all firmware-first implementation flavors.

Assumptions are:
1. both FW and OS are listening to MSI interrupts
2. FW monitors the system errors

Some FF implementation could route the AER interrupt to a higher privilege
level. Some other implementation could use INTx or a side-band channel interrupt
for firmware-interrupt too.

I have seen all 3 except MSI :) and also firmware never monitored the system
error bits. I was curious if anybody ever used those legacy bits. Now, I know
someone is using it.