Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] ib/mlx5: Request PCIe AtomicOps enabled for all 3 sizes

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 01:16:18PM +0100, Gerd Bayer wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-11-06 at 12:19 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 06:55:14PM +0100, Gerd Bayer wrote:
> > > Pass fully populated capability bit-mask requesting support for all 3
> > > sizes of AtomicOps at once when attempting to enable AtomicOps for PCI
> > > function.
> > > 
> > > When called individually, pci_enable_atomic_ops_to_root() may enable the
> > > device to send requests as soon as one size is supported. According to
> > > PCIe Spec 7.0 Section 6.15.3.1 support of 32-bit and 64-bit AtomicOps
> > > completer capabilities are tied together for root-ports. Only the
> > > 128-bit/CAS completer capabilities is an optional feature, but still we
> > > might end up end up enabling AtomicOps despite 128-bit/CAS is not
> > > supported at the root-port.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Gerd Bayer <gbayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/data_direct.c | 6 +++---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/data_direct.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/data_direct.c
> > > index b81ac5709b56f6ac0d9f60572ce7144258fa2794..112185be53f1ccc6a797e129f24432bdc86008ae 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/data_direct.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/data_direct.c
> > > @@ -179,9 +179,9 @@ static int mlx5_data_direct_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_
> > >  	if (err)
> > >  		goto err_disable;
> > >  
> > > -	if (pci_enable_atomic_ops_to_root(pdev, PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ATOMIC_COMP32) &&
> > > -	    pci_enable_atomic_ops_to_root(pdev, PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ATOMIC_COMP64) &&
> > > -	    pci_enable_atomic_ops_to_root(pdev, PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ATOMIC_COMP128))
> > > +	if (pci_enable_atomic_ops_to_root(pdev, PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ATOMIC_COMP32 |
> > > +						PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ATOMIC_COMP64 |
> > > +						PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ATOMIC_COMP128))
> > 
> > I would expect some new define which combines all together, with some
> > comment why it exists:
> > #define PCI_ATOMIC_COMP_v7  PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ATOMIC_COMP32 | PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ATOMIC_COMP64 | PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2_ATOMIC_COMP128
> 
> I see your point. I don't understand the _v7

v7 - > PCI spec *v7.0*

But it was just suggestion.

Thanks