Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:50 pm Kenji Kaneshige wrote: >> Thank you for debug info, Pierre. >> >> According to the debugging output, five slots are detected (five >> slots on laptop!?) and two of them have the same physical slots >> number '2'. This is the reason why Pierre's machine needs >> 'pciehp_slot_with_bus' option. >> >> Before 2.6.26 (from 2.6.xx), pciehp did the workaround for the >> problem (some platform wrongly assign the same physical slot >> number to multiple slots) by default. But this was not a good >> idea because of the several reasons like follows: >> >> - Slot name should be a physical identifier of physical slot >> on the system. Using bus number as a part of slot name is >> not a idea because bus number is logical number and it can >> be changed. >> >> - As Jesse explained, some hotplug slot can be handled through >> several type of controllers. For example, some hotplug slot >> can be handled by either acpiphp or pciehp. But those drivers >> must not handle the same slot at the same time. The pci >> hotplug core is checking this by checking duplicate names. >> This check didn't work because pciehp had started using bus >> number as a part of slot name and slot names became different >> between acpiphp and pciehp. >> >> About the former, I'm ok with using bus number as a part of slot >> name on the problematic platform. But it should not be used on >> the normal platform. >> >> About the latter, IIRC, thanks to Alex's pci slot framework from >> 2.6.26, pci hotplug core can check if multiple drivers attempts >> to handle the same slot even if those drivers uses the different >> names. >> >> Based on my thought above, I have a following idea to remove >> "pciehp_slot_with_bus". >> >> - Try to use physical slot number as a slot name, first. >> >> - If pci_hp_register() success, no problem. >> >> - If pci_hp_register() returns -EBUSY, that means another >> hotplug driver already handling the slot. So return as error. >> >> - If pci_hp_register() returns -EEXIST, that means there is a >> existing slot with the same name. In this case, retry to >> register slots with logical name (bus number + physical slot >> number, or other). >> >> With this idea, slots names will become as follows on Pierre's >> machine. >> >> <Before 2.6.26> >> 0001_0001, 0002_0002, 0003_0003, 0004_0004, 0005_0005, 000d_0002 >> >> <Current> >> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 >> >> <With my idea> >> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 000d_0002 >> >> >> Please give me comments. > > I think that's fine (automatically creating duplicate devices with names to > differentiate them), but I think we should also try harder to avoid adding > duplicates. > > In Pierre's case, and on my T61, there's only one actual hotplug slot > available, but the firmware creates duplicate physical slot numbers and sets > the HP_CAP bit on everything, both of which are obviously wrong (well I > suppose you could pop these chips off the board, but it's not very > practical). However, afaict that "other" OS uses the _RMV method to > determine whether a given slot is actually hot pluggable. On my T61 at > least, this seems to be accurate: only one of my EXP* objects has a _RMV > method. > > So maybe the PCIe hotplug driver should be checking for that method when ACPI > is available? We already try to use _OSC etc., so checking for _RMV first > would make sense... > As you pointed out, the root cause might not a problem of slot naming, but a problem of slots detection, because pciehp driver detects multiple PCIe hotplug slots even thought your and Pierre's system seems to have only one hotplug slot. So I think we should also consider the problem from this view point (slot detection). But, I think simply checking for _RMV method first is dangerous because I think there are many systems that doesn't implement _RMV for PCIe hotplug slots (at least, my system doesn't implement that. Anyway, I would like to look at the documents/specifications that mention _RMV method for determining whether a given slot is hot pluggable. Do you have any information about that? I think PCI Local Bus, PCI Express and PCI Firmware specification don't mention that. I think hot pluggable slots on your, Pierre's and Matthew's system are ExpressCard slots. So I guess ExpressCard specification might define something about this. But unfortunately, I don't have ExpressCard specification. Can anyone access ExpressCard spec? Thanks, Kenji Kaneshige -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
