From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@intel.com>,
Yehezkel Bernat <yehezkel.bernat@intel.com>,
Mario.Limonciello@dell.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] PCI: pciehp: Drop checking of PCI_BRIDGE_CONTROL in pciehp_unconfigure_device()
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 17:14:09 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171106231409.GI31930@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171025112940.77890-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 02:29:40PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> During surprise hot-unplug the device is not accessible anymore and
> register reads return 0xffffffff. When that happens pciehp_unconfigure_device()
> may inadvertently think the device below the bridge may be a display
> device of somesort as reading PCI_BRIDGE_CONTROL register also returns
> 0xff. This results failure of the remove operation:
>
> pciehp 0000:00:1c.0:pcie004: Slot(0): Link Down
> pciehp 0000:00:1c.0:pcie004: Slot(0): Card present
> pciehp 0000:00:1c.0:pcie004: Cannot remove display device 0000:01:00.0
>
> Because of this the hierarchy is left untouched preventing further
> hotplug operations.
>
> Now, it is not clear why the check is there in the first place and why
> we would like to prevent removing a bridge if it has PCI_BRIDGE_CTL_VGA
> set. In case of surprise hot-unplug, it would not even be possible to
> prevent the removal. It may be due to the fact that pciehp_pci.c pretty
> much copies similar implementation from shpchp_pci.c and this check was
> just left there in the code without further thinking if it is actually
> needed at all.
>
> Given this and the issue described above, I think it makes sense to drop
> the whole PCI_BRIDGE_CONTROL check from pciehp_unconfigure_device()
> which is what this patch does.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> The previous version of the patch can be found here:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10024145/
>
> Changes from the previous version:
>
> * Drop the whole PCI_BRIDGE_CONTROL check
> * Update patch subject to reflect that
>
> drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_pci.c | 12 ------------
> 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_pci.c b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_pci.c
> index 2a1ca020cf5a..acc360d1a1fb 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_pci.c
> @@ -79,7 +79,6 @@ int pciehp_configure_device(struct slot *p_slot)
> int pciehp_unconfigure_device(struct slot *p_slot)
> {
> int rc = 0;
> - u8 bctl = 0;
> u8 presence = 0;
> struct pci_dev *dev, *temp;
> struct pci_bus *parent = p_slot->ctrl->pcie->port->subordinate;
> @@ -101,17 +100,6 @@ int pciehp_unconfigure_device(struct slot *p_slot)
> list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(dev, temp, &parent->devices,
> bus_list) {
> pci_dev_get(dev);
> - if (dev->hdr_type == PCI_HEADER_TYPE_BRIDGE && presence) {
> - pci_read_config_byte(dev, PCI_BRIDGE_CONTROL, &bctl);
> - if (bctl & PCI_BRIDGE_CTL_VGA) {
> - ctrl_err(ctrl,
> - "Cannot remove display device %s\n",
> - pci_name(dev));
> - pci_dev_put(dev);
> - rc = -EINVAL;
> - break;
> - }
> - }
> if (!presence) {
> pci_dev_set_disconnected(dev, NULL);
> if (pci_has_subordinate(dev))
As you mention, shpchp_unconfigure_device() contains the same code; is
there any reason not to remove it from there as well?
I know you probably can't test shpchp, and neither can I, but it looks
like it has the same issue, and I don't want to avoid fixing it there
just for want of testing.
I wish we knew more about why that PCI_BRIDGE_CTL_VGA check was there
in the first place. I think it was added by Dely Sy in 2004 [1].
LinkedIn thinks he's still at Intel; any chance you could ping him and
see if he has any insight? My guess is that it was originally in a
path that didn't have to worry about surprise unplug. But I still
don't know why it would be a problem.
Bjorn
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/?id=c16b4b14d980
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-06 23:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-25 11:29 Mika Westerberg
2017-11-06 23:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2017-11-07 10:33 ` Mika Westerberg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171106231409.GI31930@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=Mario.Limonciello@dell.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=michael.jamet@intel.com \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=yehezkel.bernat@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®