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.

Reply via email to