[+cc Christoph]
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 02:46:57PM -0600, Govinda Tatti wrote:
>
> >>>>-static bool pcie_has_flr(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >>>>+bool pcie_has_flr(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >>>> {
> >>>> u32 cap;
> >>>>@@ -3882,6 +3882,7 @@ static bool pcie_has_flr(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >>>> pcie_capability_read_dword(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCAP, &cap);
> >>>> return cap & PCI_EXP_DEVCAP_FLR;
> >>>> }
> >>>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pcie_has_flr);
> >>>I'd rather change pcie_flr() so you could *always* call it, and it
> >>>would return 0, -ENOTTY, or whatever, based on whether FLR is
> >>>supported. Is that feasible?
> >>Sure, I will add pcie_has_flr() logic inside pcie_flr() and return
> >>appropriate
> >>values as suggested by you. Do we still want to retain pcie_has_flr() and
> >>its usage inside pci.c?.Otherwise, I will remove it and do required cleanup.
> >If you can restructure the code and remove pcie_has_flr() while
> >retaining the existing behavior of its callers, that would be great.
> I checked the current usage of pcie_has_flr() and pcie_flr(). I have
> a couple
> of questions or need some clarification.
>
> 1. pcie_has_flr() usage inside pci_probe_reset_function().
>
> This function is only calling pcie_has_flr() but not pcie_flr().
> Rest of the code is trying to do specific type of reset except
> pcie_flr().
>
> rc = pci_dev_specific_reset(dev, 1);
> if (rc != -ENOTTY)
> return rc;
> if (pcie_has_flr(dev))
> return 0;
> rc = pci_af_flr(dev, 1);
> if (rc != -ENOTTY)
> return rc;
>
> In other-words, I can remove usage of pcie_has_flr() in all other places
> in pci.c except in above function.
I think we should keep the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() part of a60a2b73ba69
("PCI: Export pcie_flr()"), but revert the restructuring part.
Prior to a60a2b73ba69, we had
int pcie_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe);
like all the other reset methods. AFAICT, the addition of
pcie_has_flr() was to optimize the path slightly because when drivers
call pcie_flr(), they should already know that their hardware supports
FLR. But I don't think that optimization is worth the extra code
complexity. If we do need to optimize it, we can check this in the
core during enumeration and set PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_FLR_RESET
accordingly.
Christoph, chime in if I'm missing something here.
> 2. W.r.t pcie_flr(), I am planning to return error code. Currently,
> the following
> file/modules are calling this function. My plan is to add a check
> for return
> code and print a WANRING message if return code is NON-ZERO. I
> hope this is
> sufficient for this patch.
>
> drivers/crypto/qat/qat_common/adf_aer.c
> drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/chip.c (2 places)
> drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/liquidio/lio_vf_main.c
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c (2 places)
> drivers/pci/quirks.c (2 places)
Checking the return code is probably overkill, since pcie_flr() is
void and returns no errors now. The only point of the return value is
to tell whether the device supports FLR. If we call it with "probe ==
0" there's no useful error to return.
Bjorn
