On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 12:06:18AM +0000, Kelvin.Cao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Thu, 2021-10-07 at 16:23 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 09:27:49PM +0000, Kelvin.Cao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 15:20 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 07:00:55PM +0000, > > > > Kelvin.Cao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > wrote: > > > > So wait, you mean you just intentionally ask the firmware to > > > > reset, knowing that the device will be unusable until the user > > > > reboots or does a manual rescan? And the way to improve this is > > > > for the driver to report an error to the user instead of hanging? > > > > I *guess* that might be some sort of improvement, but seems like > > > > a > > > > pretty small one. > > > > > > Yes, however, I believe it's something our users really like to > > > have... With this, they can do their user space > > > programming/scripting more easily in a synchronous fashion. > > > > > > > > - The firwmare crashes and doesn't respond, which normally is > > > > > the reason for users to issue a firmware reset command to try > > > > > to recover it via either the driver or a sideband interface. > > > > > The firmware may not be able to recover by a reset in some > > > > > extream situations like hardware errors, so that an error > > > > > return is probably all the users can get before another level > > > > > of recovery happens. > > > > > > > > > > So I'd think this patch is still making the driver better in > > > > > some way. > > > > OK. I still think the fact that all these different mechanisms can > > reset the device behind your back and make the switch and anything on > > the other side of it just stop working is ..., well, let's just say > > it's quite surprising to me. > > Actually there're mechanisms like permission control to limit what > people can do in the firmware, so I guess it's not as bad as it sounds > like. > > > > Well, at least this isn't quite so much a mystery anymore and maybe > > we > > can improve the commit log. E.g., maybe something like this: > > > > A firmware hard reset may be initiated by various mechanisms > > including a UART interface, TWI sideband interface from BMC, MRPC > > command from userspace, etc. The switchtec management driver is > > unaware of these resets. > > > > The reset clears PCI state including the BARs and Memory Space > > Enable bits, so the device no longer responds to the MMIO accesses > > the driver uses to operate it. > > > > MMIO reads to the device will fail with a PCIe error. When the > > root > > complex handles that error, it typically fabricates ~0 data to > > complete the CPU read. > > > > Check for this sort of error by reading the device ID from MMIO > > space. This ID can never be ~0, so if we see that value, it > > probably means the PCIe Memory Read failed and we should return an > > error indication to the application using the switchtec driver. > > It looks good to me, the commit log removes the ambiguity. Let me know > if you prefer a v2 patchset with the updated commit log and naming > issue fix. Yes, if you post a v2 of this patch, I'll update my pci/switchtec branch with it. Thanks for your patience! Bjorn
