On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:00:16AM -0800, matthew.gerlach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, Xu Yilun wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:37:15PM -0800, Matthew Gerlach wrote:
Revision 2 of the Device Feature List (DFL) Port feature
adds support for connecting the contents of the port to
multiple PCIe Physical Functions (PF).
This new functionality requires changing the port reset
behavior during FPGA and software initialization from
revision 1 of the port feature. With revision 1, the initial
state of the logic inside the port was not guaranteed to
be valid until a port reset was performed by software during
driver initialization. With revision 2, the initial state
of the logic inside the port is guaranteed to be valid,
and a port reset is not required during driver initialization.
This change in port reset behavior avoids a potential race
condition during PCI enumeration when a port is connected to
multiple PFs. Problems can occur if the driver attached to
the PF managing the port asserts reset in its probe function
when a driver attached to another PF accesses the port in its
own probe function. The potential problems include failed or hung
Only racing during probe functions? I assume any time port_reset()
would fail TLPs for the other PF. And port_reset() could be triggered
at runtime by ioctl().
Yes, a port_reset() triggered by ioctl could result in failed TLP for the
other PFs. The user space SW performing the ioctl needs to ensure all PFs
involved are properly quiesced before the port_reset is performed.
How would user get an insight into other PF drivers to know everything
is quiesced? I mean do we need driver level management for this?
Thanks,
Yilun
Do you want me to update the commit message with this information?
Thanks,
Matthew