Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1725834 > unrolled thread

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pci tree with the net tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pci tree with the net tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-09-04 07:00 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pci tree with the net tree Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> - 2017-09-06 01:00 +0200
      Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pci tree with the net tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-09-06 01:20 +0200

#1725834 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pci tree with the net tree

Hi all,

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:51:28 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pci tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/pci/probe.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   a99b646afa8a ("PCI: Disable PCIe Relaxed Ordering if unsupported")
> 
> from the net tree and commit:
> 
>   62ce94a7a5a5 ("PCI: Mark Broadcom HT2100 Root Port Extended Tags as broken")
> 
> from the pci tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc drivers/pci/probe.c
> index e6a917b4acd3,d11fede6bd53..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
> @@@ -1751,67 -1753,51 +1753,94 @@@ int pci_configure_extended_tags(struct 
>   	int ret;
>   
>   	if (!pci_is_pcie(dev))
> - 		return;
> + 		return 0;
>   
> - 	ret = pcie_capability_read_dword(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCAP, &dev_cap);
> + 	ret = pcie_capability_read_dword(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCAP, &cap);
>   	if (ret)
> - 		return;
> + 		return 0;
> + 
> + 	if (!(cap & PCI_EXP_DEVCAP_EXT_TAG))
> + 		return 0;
> + 
> + 	ret = pcie_capability_read_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, &ctl);
> + 	if (ret)
> + 		return 0;
> + 
> + 	host = pci_find_host_bridge(dev->bus);
> + 	if (!host)
> + 		return 0;
> + 
> + 	/*
> + 	 * If some device in the hierarchy doesn't handle Extended Tags
> + 	 * correctly, make sure they're disabled.
> + 	 */
> + 	if (host->no_ext_tags) {
> + 		if (ctl & PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_EXT_TAG) {
> + 			dev_info(&dev->dev, "disabling Extended Tags\n");
> + 			pcie_capability_clear_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL,
> + 						   PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_EXT_TAG);
> + 		}
> + 		return 0;
> + 	}
>   
> - 	if (dev_cap & PCI_EXP_DEVCAP_EXT_TAG)
> + 	if (!(ctl & PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_EXT_TAG)) {
> + 		dev_info(&dev->dev, "enabling Extended Tags\n");
>   		pcie_capability_set_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL,
>   					 PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_EXT_TAG);
> + 	}
> + 	return 0;
>   }
>   
>  +/**
>  + * pcie_relaxed_ordering_enabled - Probe for PCIe relaxed ordering enable
>  + * @dev: PCI device to query
>  + *
>  + * Returns true if the device has enabled relaxed ordering attribute.
>  + */
>  +bool pcie_relaxed_ordering_enabled(struct pci_dev *dev)
>  +{
>  +	u16 v;
>  +
>  +	pcie_capability_read_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, &v);
>  +
>  +	return !!(v & PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_RELAX_EN);
>  +}
>  +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pcie_relaxed_ordering_enabled);
>  +
>  +static void pci_configure_relaxed_ordering(struct pci_dev *dev)
>  +{
>  +	struct pci_dev *root;
>  +
>  +	/* PCI_EXP_DEVICE_RELAX_EN is RsvdP in VFs */
>  +	if (dev->is_virtfn)
>  +		return;
>  +
>  +	if (!pcie_relaxed_ordering_enabled(dev))
>  +		return;
>  +
>  +	/*
>  +	 * For now, we only deal with Relaxed Ordering issues with Root
>  +	 * Ports. Peer-to-Peer DMA is another can of worms.
>  +	 */
>  +	root = pci_find_pcie_root_port(dev);
>  +	if (!root)
>  +		return;
>  +
>  +	if (root->dev_flags & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RELAXED_ORDERING) {
>  +		pcie_capability_clear_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL,
>  +					   PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_RELAX_EN);
>  +		dev_info(&dev->dev, "Disable Relaxed Ordering because the Root Port didn't support it\n");
>  +	}
>  +}
>  +
>   static void pci_configure_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
>   {
>   	struct hotplug_params hpp;
>   	int ret;
>   
>   	pci_configure_mps(dev);
> - 	pci_configure_extended_tags(dev);
> + 	pci_configure_extended_tags(dev, NULL);
>  +	pci_configure_relaxed_ordering(dev);
>   
>   	memset(&hpp, 0, sizeof(hpp));
>   	ret = pci_get_hp_params(dev, &hpp);

Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1727069

On 9/4/2017 12:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.

I suppose this was a message for Bjorn, right?

I looked at the change and it looked good to me.

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1727075

Hi Sinan,

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:54:38 -0400 Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/4/2017 12:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.  
> 
> I suppose this was a message for Bjorn, right?

Correct.  It was just a reminder that he may have to tell Linus about
the conflict when he asks Linus to merge his tree (depending on how
complex the conflict is and if he gets in before Dave gets the net-next
tree merged).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web