On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 04:56:15PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > What bad things would happen if we did the following? > > I have no way to test this, but I don't understand what benefit > there is in testing HP_SUPR_RM() here. > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c > index 27f4429..4bbe257 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_ctrl.c > @@ -463,9 +463,8 @@ static void interrupt_event_handler(struct work_struct *work) > break; > case INT_PRESENCE_ON: > case INT_PRESENCE_OFF: > - if (!HP_SUPR_RM(ctrl)) > - break; > - ctrl_dbg(ctrl, "Surprise Removal\n"); > + ctrl_dbg(ctrl, "Presence Detect changed (now %spresent)\n", > + info->event_type == INT_PRESENCE_OFF ? "not " : ""); > handle_surprise_event(p_slot); > break; > default: some chipsets (from cpu vendor) have some problem, when you remove the card, the present bit will keep flip around. Because that present bit is "OR" with inband (pcie link) and outband (input from VPP) detection. and silicon is trying to retrain the link to see if there is any device there. That means handle_surprise_event would get called frequently. Thanks Yinghai -- 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
