On 08/28/2013 01:07 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Jiang Liu <liuj97@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> PCIe Base Spec 1.0 Section 5.8 states that "The PCI Express Capabilities,
>> Device Capabilities, Device Status/Control, Link Capabilities and
>> Link Status/Control registers are required for all PCI Express devices."
>
> And spec 1.1 amended that (in sec 7.8, not 5.8) to say that the link
> registers are not required for Root Complex Integrated Endpoints.
> Integrated endpoints and event collectors don't have links, so even if
> some RC-integrated devices do implement link registers per spec 1.0, I
> don't think there's any point in allowing access to them.
Hi Bjorn,
Sorry, I haven't noticed that PCIe Base spec 1.1 has modified
the definition without changing the PCIe capability version. So seems
we should remove the "pcie_cap_version(dev) == 1" check and just
verify PCIe express device types. Which form do you prefer?
!(type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END || type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC)
or
type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ENDPOINT ||
type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_LEG_END ||
type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ||
type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_UPSTREAM ||
type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM ||
type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE ||
type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCIE_BRIDGE;
Regards!
Gerry
>
>> And PCIe Base Spec 3.0 Section 7.8 states that "The Link Capabilities,
>> Link Status, and Link Control registers are required for all Root Ports,
>> Switch Ports, Bridges, and Endpoints that are not Root Complex Integrated
>> Endpoints."
>>
>> Changeset 1b6b8ce2ac372e "PCI: only save/restore existent registers in the
>> PCIe capability" introduces pcie_cap_has_lnkctl(), which assumes:
>> 1) PCIe root port, endpoint and legacy endpoint with 1.0 PCIe Capability
>> implement Link Cap/Status/Control registers.
>> 2) All PCIe devices with 2.0 PCIe Capability implemnet Link Cap/Status/
>> Control registers.
>>
>> The above assumptions don't conform to PCIe base specifications, so change
>> pcie_cap_has_lnkctl() to follow PCIe specifications.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Hi Bjorn,
>> Yuval has a PCIe 1.0 swither, so triggers the bug. I'm not sure
>> why Yu Zhao has implemented pcie_cap_has_linctl() in that way, any special
>> consideration here?
>>
>> Hi Yuval,
>> Could you please help to test this patch? Due to hardware resource
>> constraints, I have just compiled the patch on my laptop without testing.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/access.c | 12 ++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/access.c b/drivers/pci/access.c
>> index 1cc2366..23ff366 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/access.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/access.c
>> @@ -484,10 +484,14 @@ static inline bool pcie_cap_has_lnkctl(const struct pci_dev *dev)
>> {
>> int type = pci_pcie_type(dev);
>>
>> - return pcie_cap_version(dev) > 1 ||
>> - type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ||
>> - type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ENDPOINT ||
>> - type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_LEG_END;
>> + return pcie_cap_version(dev) == 1 ||
>> + type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ENDPOINT ||
>> + type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_LEG_END ||
>> + type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT ||
>> + type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_UPSTREAM ||
>> + type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM ||
>> + type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE ||
>> + type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCIE_BRIDGE;
>> }
>>
>> static inline bool pcie_cap_has_sltctl(const struct pci_dev *dev)
>> --
>> 1.8.1.2
>>
--
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
