From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754418AbdBHNAH (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:00:07 -0500 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:6158 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753587AbdBHNAE (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2017 08:00:04 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,346,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="1092306245" Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:00:26 +0200 From: Erik Veijola To: Lukas Wunner Cc: Mika Westerberg , Yinghai Lu , Bjorn Helgaas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: pciehp is broken from 4.10-rc1 Message-ID: <20170208130026.GA8375@eveijola-desk.fi.intel.com> References: <20170203055200.GA29413@wunner.de> <20170204081254.GA29595@wunner.de> <20170204185607.GA29957@wunner.de> <20170204233443.GA234@wunner.de> <20170205073454.GA253@wunner.de> <20170206103706.GE19313@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20170206213528.GD679@wunner.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170206213528.GD679@wunner.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:35:28PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:37:06PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 08:34:54AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > @Mika, Rafael: Are you aware of Skylake machines with unreliable link > > > training, or perhaps errata of Skylake chips related to link training > > > on hotplug ports? > > > > According to the 100-series (the chipset used with Skylake) errata > > below, I don't see any mentions related to PCIe link training issues. > > > > http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/100-series-chipset-spec-update.pdf > > Yinghai Lu responded off-list that the hardware in question is an > unreleased / secret Intel product, so this particular issue cannot > be expected to be documented publicly at this point. > > Of course this raises the question whether issues with unreleased > products can at all be considered valid regressions, given that the > final product may not regress. It seems like a novelty to me that > patches would get reverted for something like this, but we'll see. > > Lukas > Yinghai, we may have a similar system in our lab so we could test this also. What is your setup for doing the test? -Erik