On 4/15/2018 11:17 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > It doesn't seem right to me that we handle both ERR_NONFATAL and > ERR_FATAL events differently if we happen to have DPC support in a > switch. > > Maybe we should consider triggering DPC only on ERR_FATAL? That would > keep DPC out of the ERR_NONFATAL cases. > >From reliability perspective, it makes sense. DPC handles NONFATAL errors by bringing down the link. If error happened behind a switch and root port is handling DPC, we are impacting a lot of devices operation because of one faulty device.
Keith, do you have any preference on this direction? > For ERR_FATAL, maybe we should bite the bullet and use > remove/re-enumerate for AER as well as for DPC. That would be painful > for higher-level software, but if we're willing to accept that pain > for new systems that support DPC, maybe life would be better overall > if it worked the same way on systems without DPC? Sure, we can go to this route as well. -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.