On 18/10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Naveen,
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 5:33 PM Naveen Naidu <naveennaidu479@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > An MMIO read from a PCI device that doesn't exist or doesn't respond
> > causes a PCI error. There's no real data to return to satisfy the
> > CPU read, so most hardware fabricates ~0 data.
> >
> > The host controller drivers sets the error response values (~0) and
> > returns an error when faulty hardware read occurs. But the error
> > response value (~0) is already being set in PCI_OP_READ and
> > PCI_USER_READ_CONFIG whenever a read by host controller driver fails.
> >
> > Thus, it's no longer necessary for the host controller drivers to
> > fabricate any error response.
> >
> > This helps unify PCI error response checking and make error check
> > consistent and easier to find.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Naveen Naidu <naveennaidu479@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rcar-host.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rcar-host.c
> > @@ -161,10 +161,8 @@ static int rcar_pcie_read_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
> >
> > ret = rcar_pcie_config_access(host, RCAR_PCI_ACCESS_READ,
> > bus, devfn, where, val);
> > - if (ret != PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL) {
> > - *val = 0xffffffff;
>
> I don't see the behavior you describe in PCI_OP_READ(), so dropping
> this will lead to returning an uninitialized value?
>
Hello Geert,
Thank you for looking into the patch.
The described behaviour for PCI_OP_READ is part of the 01/24 [1] patch of
the series.
[1]:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/b913b4966938b7cad8c049dc34093e6c4b2fae68.1634306198.git.naveennaidu479@xxxxxxxxx/T/#u
It looks like, I did not add proper receipients for that patch and hence
is leading to confusion. I really apologize for that.
I do not know what the right approach here should be, should I resend
the entire patch series, adding proper receipients OR should I reply to
each of the patches for the drivers and add the link to the patch. I did
not want to spam people with a lot of mails so I was confused as to what
the right option is.
Thanks,
Naveen
> > + if (ret != PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL)
> > return ret;
> > - }
> >
> > if (size == 1)
> > *val = (*val >> (BITS_PER_BYTE * (where & 3))) & 0xff;
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
