On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 11:04:31AM +0800, Rongguang Wei wrote:
> On 4/16/23 11:18 PM, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 01:46:19PM +0800, Rongguang Wei wrote:
> >> --- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c
> >> @@ -232,6 +232,7 @@ void pciehp_handle_presence_or_link_change(struct controller *ctrl, u32 events)
> >> */
> >> mutex_lock(&ctrl->state_lock);
> >> switch (ctrl->state) {
> >> + case BLINKINGON_STATE:
> >> case BLINKINGOFF_STATE:
> >> cancel_delayed_work(&ctrl->button_work);
> >> fallthrough;
> >
> > This solution has the disadvantage that a gratuitous "Card not present"
> > message is emitted even if the slot is occupied.
>
> I think when the "Card not present" is emitted, it may not consider the
> slot status from the beginning.
I don't quite follow. With the change you're proposing, if the Attention
Button has been pressed and there's a card in the slot, after five seconds
you'll emit an erroneous "Card not present" message. Erroneous because
there's a card in the slot.
> If the slot is in ON_STATE and is occupied, turn the slot off and then
> back on. The message is also emitted at first.
That's intentional. If the slot is occupied and a Presence Detect Changed
event was received, it means the card in the slot may be a different one.
So the "Card not present" message relates to the card that was
*previously* in the slot.
If the slot is still (or again) occupied, we'll then try to bring it up
and that will lead to a subsequent "Card present" message.
> Maybe I can rework to add like this to prevent the gratuitous message:
Could you just test if the 1-line change I suggested in my previous e-mail
fixes the issue for you?
Thanks,
Lukas
