[+cc Russell, Sinan, Herbert, Srikanth, Derek, Satanand, Felix, Raghu] On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 09:48:02AM -0600, Govinda Tatti wrote: > On 12/13/2017 3:24 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 02:46:57PM -0600, Govinda Tatti wrote:
> >>>>>>-static bool pcie_has_flr(struct pci_dev *dev) > >>>>>>+bool pcie_has_flr(struct pci_dev *dev) > >>>>>> { > >>>>>> u32 cap; > >>>>>>@@ -3882,6 +3882,7 @@ static bool pcie_has_flr(struct pci_dev *dev) > >>>>>> pcie_capability_read_dword(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCAP, &cap); > >>>>>> return cap & PCI_EXP_DEVCAP_FLR; > >>>>>> } > >>>>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pcie_has_flr); > >>>>>I'd rather change pcie_flr() so you could *always* call it, and > >>>>>it would return 0, -ENOTTY, or whatever, based on whether FLR > >>>>>is supported. Is that feasible? > >>>>Sure, I will add pcie_has_flr() logic inside pcie_flr() and > >>>>return appropriate values as suggested by you. Do we still want > >>>>to retain pcie_has_flr() and its usage inside pci.c?.Otherwise, > >>>>I will remove it and do required cleanup. > >>>If you can restructure the code and remove pcie_has_flr() while > >>>retaining the existing behavior of its callers, that would be > >>>great. > >>I checked the current usage of pcie_has_flr() and pcie_flr(). I > >>have a couple of questions or need some clarification. > >> > >>1. pcie_has_flr() usage inside pci_probe_reset_function(). > >> > >> This function is only calling pcie_has_flr() but not pcie_flr(). > >> Rest of the code is trying to do specific type of reset except > >> pcie_flr(). > >> > >> rc = pci_dev_specific_reset(dev, 1); > >> if (rc != -ENOTTY) > >> return rc; > >> if (pcie_has_flr(dev)) > >> return 0; > >> rc = pci_af_flr(dev, 1); > >> if (rc != -ENOTTY) > >> return rc; > >> > >> In other-words, I can remove usage of pcie_has_flr() in all > >> other places in pci.c except in above function. > >I think we should keep the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() part of a60a2b73ba69 > >("PCI: Export pcie_flr()"), but revert the restructuring part. > > > >Prior to a60a2b73ba69, we had > > > > int pcie_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe); > > > >like all the other reset methods. AFAICT, the addition of > >pcie_has_flr() was to optimize the path slightly because when > >drivers call pcie_flr(), they should already know that their > >hardware supports FLR. But I don't think that optimization is > >worth the extra code complexity. If we do need to optimize it, we > >can check this in the core during enumeration and set > >PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_FLR_RESET accordingly. > Not all code paths are aware of FLR capability and also, not > using pcie_flr(). For example, > > arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c I assume you're referring to pnv_eeh_do_flr() (which contains code similar to pcie_flr()) and pnv_eeh_do_af_flr() (which has code similar to pci_af_flr()). I agree that those are problematic and would ideally be unified with the PCI core implementations. Powerpc has quite a bit of this sort of special-case code for several reasons, some just historical and some more concrete, so I don't know how feasible this is. > drivers/crypto/cavium/nitrox/nitrox_main.c This has nitrox_reset_device(), which should definitely be replaced with a core interface. > drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/octeon_mailbox.c And this has octeon_mbox_process_cmd() which also does a home-grown PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_BCR_FLR request and also should definitely use a core interface. > So, we should consider one of these options. > > - set PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_FLR_RESET if it is not supported. > - pcie_flr() should return if it is not supported > > If we modify pcie_flr() to return error codes, then we need to modify > all existing modules that are calling this function. Yes, of course. > Please let me know your preference, so that I can move accordingly. Thanks. I think Christoph volunteered to do some restructuring, but I don't know his timeframe. If you can, I would probably wait for that because there's so much overlap here. The other paths that use PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_BCR_FLR are definitely issues and should be fixed, but again should wait for the revised pcie_flr() interface. And if they're not actually required for your Xen issue, they sound like "nice to have" cleanups that will not gate your Xen fixes. I added this to my ever-growing list of cleanups to do. Bjorn _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel