diff options
author | Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com> | 2020-07-25 18:12:31 +1000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> | 2020-07-26 23:34:21 +1000 |
commit | a131bfc69bc868083a6c7f9b5dad1331902a3534 (patch) | |
tree | 6406fb8fbbb103794ad0c18a0512ddd2f9e245df /arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c | |
parent | 31595ae5aece519be5faa2e2013278ce45894d26 (diff) |
powerpc/eeh: Move PE tree setup into the platform
The EEH core has a concept of a "PE tree" to support PowerNV. The PE tree
follows the PCI bus structures because a reset asserted on an upstream
bridge will be propagated to the downstream bridges. On pseries there's a
1-1 correspondence between what the guest sees are a PHB and a PE so the
"tree" is really just a single node.
Current the EEH core is reponsible for setting up this PE tree which it
does by traversing the pci_dn tree. The structure of the pci_dn tree
matches the bus tree on PowerNV which leads to the PE tree being "correct"
this setup method doesn't make a whole lot of sense and it's actively
confusing for the pseries case where it doesn't really do anything.
We want to remove the dependence on pci_dn anyway so this patch move
choosing where to insert a new PE into the platform code rather than
being part of the generic EEH code. For PowerNV this simplifies the
tree building logic and removes the use of pci_dn. For pseries we
keep the existing logic. I'm not really convinced it does anything
due to the 1-1 PE-to-PHB correspondence so every device under that
PHB should be in the same PE, but I'd rather not remove it entirely
until we've had a chance to look at it more deeply.
Signed-off-by: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200725081231.39076-14-oohall@gmail.com
Diffstat (limited to 'arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c')
-rw-r--r-- | arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c | 27 |
1 files changed, 26 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c index 8c9fca773692..9af8c3b98853 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c @@ -338,6 +338,28 @@ static int pnv_eeh_find_ecap(struct pci_dn *pdn, int cap) return 0; } +static struct eeh_pe *pnv_eeh_get_upstream_pe(struct pci_dev *pdev) +{ + struct pci_controller *hose = pdev->bus->sysdata; + struct pnv_phb *phb = hose->private_data; + struct pci_dev *parent = pdev->bus->self; + +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV + /* for VFs we use the PF's PE as the upstream PE */ + if (pdev->is_virtfn) + parent = pdev->physfn; +#endif + + /* otherwise use the PE of our parent bridge */ + if (parent) { + struct pnv_ioda_pe *ioda_pe = pnv_ioda_get_pe(parent); + + return eeh_pe_get(phb->hose, ioda_pe->pe_number, 0); + } + + return NULL; +} + /** * pnv_eeh_probe - Do probe on PCI device * @pdev: pci_dev to probe @@ -350,6 +372,7 @@ static struct eeh_dev *pnv_eeh_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev) struct pci_controller *hose = pdn->phb; struct pnv_phb *phb = hose->private_data; struct eeh_dev *edev = pdn_to_eeh_dev(pdn); + struct eeh_pe *upstream_pe; uint32_t pcie_flags; int ret; int config_addr = (pdn->busno << 8) | (pdn->devfn); @@ -398,8 +421,10 @@ static struct eeh_dev *pnv_eeh_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev) edev->pe_config_addr = phb->ioda.pe_rmap[config_addr]; + upstream_pe = pnv_eeh_get_upstream_pe(pdev); + /* Create PE */ - ret = eeh_pe_tree_insert(edev); + ret = eeh_pe_tree_insert(edev, upstream_pe); if (ret) { eeh_edev_warn(edev, "Failed to add device to PE (code %d)\n", ret); return NULL; |