Re: [PATCH v3 00/32] provide interfaces to access PCIe capabilities registers
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Date: 2012-08-22 16:29:25
Also in:
linux-pci
Subsystem:
pci subsystem, the rest · Maintainers:
Bjorn Helgaas, Linus Torvalds
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Cui, Dexuan [off-list ref] wrote:
Bjorn Helgaas wrote on 2012-08-21:
quoted
I am still concerned about reset_intel_82599_sfp_virtfn(). It looks wrong and possibly unnecessary. It looks wrong because it sets PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_BCR_FLR and blindly clears all other bits in PCI_EXP_DEVCTL. Most of the bits are probably cleared by the FLR anyway, but Aux Power PM Enable is RWS ("sticky"), so it is *not* modified by FLR. Therefore, using reset_intel_82599_sfp_virtfn() has the probably unintended side effect of clearing Aux Power PM Enable. It looks possibly unnecessary because the generic pcie_flr() does essentially the same thing, so it's not clear why we need a special case for 82599.
I think reset_intel_82599_sfp_virtfn() is correct AND necessary. (pcie_flr() doesn't work here) Please note the 82599 VF is a special PCIe device that doesn't report PCIe FLR capability though actually it does support that. That is why we put it in quirks.c. :-) The PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_AUX_PME bit of the 82599 VF is read-only and always zero. Please see http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/82599-10-gbe-controller-datasheet.pdf 9.5 Virtual Functions Configuration Space Table 9.7 VF PCIe Configuration Space 9.5.2.2.1 VF Device Control Register (0xA8; RW)
Thanks, Dexuan! The 82599 does report FLR in the DEVCAP for the PF (sec 9.3.10.4), but not in the DEVCAP for the VF (sec 9.5), which indeed means we can't use pcie_flr() on the VFs. I wonder whether this error appears in any other devices. The VF DEVCTL register (sec 9.5.2.2.1) is RO and zero except for "Initiate FLR" unlike the PF DEVCTL (sec 9.3.10.5). The read/modify/write done by pcie_flr() would work on the VF but is not necessary. The VF DEVSTA register (sec 9.5.2.2.2) does have an active "Transaction Pending" bit. That suggests to me that we should wait for it to be clear, as pcie_flr() does. What would you think of a patch like the following? My idea is to make it the same as pcie_flr() except for the absolutely necessary differences. With this patch, the only difference is that we don't look at the 82599 DEVCAP FLR bit.
diff --git a/drivers/pci/quirks.c b/drivers/pci/quirks.c
index aa77538..7a451ff 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/quirks.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/quirks.c@@ -3081,10 +3081,36 @@ static int reset_intel_generic_dev(structpci_dev *dev, int probe)
static int reset_intel_82599_sfp_virtfn(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe)
{
+ int i;
+ u16 status;
+
+ /*
+ * http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/82599-10-gbe-controller-datasheet.pdf
+ *
+ * The 82599 supports FLR on VFs, but FLR support is reported only
+ * in the PF DEVCAP (sec 9.3.10.4), not in the VF DEVCAP (sec 9.5).
+ * Therefore, we can't use pcie_flr(), which checks the VF DEVCAP.
+ */
+
if (probe)
return 0;
- pcie_capability_write_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_BCR_FLR);
+ /* Wait for Transaction Pending bit clean */
+ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
+ if (i)
+ msleep((1 << (i - 1)) * 100);
+
+ pcie_capability_read_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVSTA, &status);
+ if (!(status & PCI_EXP_DEVSTA_TRPND))
+ goto clear;
+ }
+
+ dev_err(&dev->dev, "transaction is not cleared; "
+ "proceeding with reset anyway\n");
+
+clear:
+ pcie_capability_set_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_BCR_FLR);
+
msleep(100);
return 0;