From: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com> Date: 2020-09-02 04:01:54
The MPS field in the VF config space is marked as reserved in current
versions of the SR-IOV spec. In other words, this fixup doesn't do
anything.
Signed-off-by: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c | 18 ------------------
1 file changed, 18 deletions(-)
Le 02/09/2020 à 05:51, Oliver O'Halloran a écrit :
The MPS field in the VF config space is marked as reserved in current
versions of the SR-IOV spec. In other words, this fixup doesn't do
anything.
Signed-off-by: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>
A lot of cleanup patches from Oliver were merged in Septembre 2020 but
not this one.
Any reason ?
Thanks
Christophe
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Date: 2022-05-19 12:39:22
Christophe Leroy [off-list ref] writes:
Le 02/09/2020 à 05:51, Oliver O'Halloran a écrit :
quoted
The MPS field in the VF config space is marked as reserved in current
versions of the SR-IOV spec. In other words, this fixup doesn't do
anything.
Signed-off-by: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>
A lot of cleanup patches from Oliver were merged in Septembre 2020 but
not this one.
Any reason ?
It wasn't clear to me that it's safe to remove. The commit that added it
seemed to think it was important.
The fact that it's out-of-spec doesn't mean we don't have some hardware
somewhere that relies on that.
cheers
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:38 PM Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] wrote:
Christophe Leroy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Le 02/09/2020 à 05:51, Oliver O'Halloran a écrit :
quoted
The MPS field in the VF config space is marked as reserved in current
versions of the SR-IOV spec. In other words, this fixup doesn't do
anything.
Signed-off-by: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>
A lot of cleanup patches from Oliver were merged in Septembre 2020 but
not this one.
Any reason ?
It wasn't clear to me that it's safe to remove. The commit that added it
seemed to think it was important.
The fact that it's out-of-spec doesn't mean we don't have some hardware
somewhere that relies on that.
There is no hardware that depends on it. It was added in response to a
bug report on the IBM internal bugzilla about virtual functions not
reporting the same MPS as the physical function in the output of
lspci. This is by design since MPS is a property that is only relevant
to the PF. There was a corresponding patch to skiboot to intercept
writes to the MPS field of VFs which was used to fake a writable MPS
field in firmware. I removed that hack in 2019
(https://github.com/open-power/skiboot/commit/22057f868f3b2b1fd02647a738f6da0858b5eb6c)
since it was pointless and was causing other problems. There's no real
reason to keep this code around IMO.
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Date: 2022-05-20 10:34:32
"Oliver O'Halloran" [off-list ref] writes:
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:38 PM Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Christophe Leroy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Le 02/09/2020 à 05:51, Oliver O'Halloran a écrit :
quoted
The MPS field in the VF config space is marked as reserved in current
versions of the SR-IOV spec. In other words, this fixup doesn't do
anything.
Signed-off-by: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>
A lot of cleanup patches from Oliver were merged in Septembre 2020 but
not this one.
Any reason ?
It wasn't clear to me that it's safe to remove. The commit that added it
seemed to think it was important.
The fact that it's out-of-spec doesn't mean we don't have some hardware
somewhere that relies on that.
There is no hardware that depends on it. It was added in response to a
bug report on the IBM internal bugzilla about virtual functions not
reporting the same MPS as the physical function in the output of
lspci. This is by design since MPS is a property that is only relevant
to the PF. There was a corresponding patch to skiboot to intercept
writes to the MPS field of VFs which was used to fake a writable MPS
field in firmware. I removed that hack in 2019
(https://github.com/open-power/skiboot/commit/22057f868f3b2b1fd02647a738f6da0858b5eb6c)
since it was pointless and was causing other problems. There's no real
reason to keep this code around IMO.
Thanks for the extra detail, I am persuaded :)
cheers