On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:39 PM <Alex_Gagniuc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 08/05/2018 02:06 AM, Tal Gilboa wrote: > > On 7/31/2018 6:10 PM, Alex G. wrote: > >> On 07/31/2018 01:40 AM, Tal Gilboa wrote: > >> [snip] > >>>>>> @@ -2240,6 +2258,9 @@ static void pci_init_capabilities(struct > >>>>>> pci_dev *dev) > >>>>>> /* Advanced Error Reporting */ > >>>>>> pci_aer_init(dev); > >>>>>> + /* Check link and detect downtrain errors */ > >>>>>> + pcie_check_upstream_link(dev); > >>>> > >>>> This is called for every PCIe device right? Won't there be a > >>>> duplicated print in case a device loads with lower PCIe bandwidth > >>>> than needed? > >>> > >>> Alex, can you comment on this please? > >> > >> Of course I can. > >> > >> There's one print at probe() time, which happens if bandwidth < max. I > >> would think that's fine. There is a way to duplicate it, and that is if > >> the driver also calls print_link_status(). A few driver maintainers who > >> call it have indicated they'd be fine with removing it from the driver, > >> and leaving it in the core PCI. > > > > We would be fine with that as well. Please include the removal in your > > patches. > > What's the proper procedure? Do I wait for confirmation from Bjorn > before knocking on maintainer's doors, or do I William Wallace into > their trees and demand they merge the removal (pending Bjorn's approval > on the other side) ? Post a v4 series that does the PCI core stuff as well as removing the driver code. Bjorn
