Re: [PATCH 1/2, pci] pci: Addition of PCI_DEV_FLAGS_QUIET_PCI_REALIGN attribute to the PCI subsystem

From: Desnes Augusto Nunes do RosÃrio
Date: Wed Mar 14 2018 - 14:22:59 EST


Hello Bjorn,

On 03/14/2018 03:06 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 01:34:54PM -0300, Desnes A. Nunes do Rosario wrote:
Add PCI_DEV_FLAGS_QUIET_PCI_REALIGN to pci_dev_flags and use it to
silent PCI realignment messages if the flag is turned on by a driver.

Signed-off-by: Desnes A. Nunes do Rosario <desnesn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pci/pci.c | 3 ++-
drivers/pci/setup-res.c | 3 ++-
include/linux/pci.h | 2 ++
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
index 8c71d1a66cdd..be197c944e5f 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
@@ -5505,7 +5505,8 @@ void pci_reassigndev_resource_alignment(struct pci_dev *dev)
return;
}
- pci_info(dev, "Disabling memory decoding and releasing memory resources\n");
+ if (!(dev->dev_flags & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_QUIET_PCI_REALIGN))
+ pci_info(dev, "Disabling memory decoding and releasing memory resources\n");
pci_read_config_word(dev, PCI_COMMAND, &command);
command &= ~PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY;
pci_write_config_word(dev, PCI_COMMAND, command);
diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-res.c b/drivers/pci/setup-res.c
index 369d48d6c6f1..00a538def763 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/setup-res.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/setup-res.c
@@ -172,7 +172,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_claim_resource);
void pci_disable_bridge_window(struct pci_dev *dev)
{
- pci_info(dev, "disabling bridge mem windows\n");
+ if (!(dev->dev_flags & PCI_DEV_FLAGS_QUIET_PCI_REALIGN))
+ pci_info(dev, "disabling bridge mem windows\n");

As far as I'm concerned, we can just remove these messages completely.
I don't think there's any real value there.

After I found out that this was happening to all PCI devices on powerpc due to the __weak
pcibios_default_alignment() interface (necessary for VFIO passthrough and performance), I confess that this was my first approach to this matter; however I couldn't vouch the need of these messages on other architectures.

If there are no further concerns, I definitely prefer sending a second version of this patch only eliminating these messages and attesting the reason why.

Thank you very much for your review Bjorn,

--
Desnes A. Nunes do RosÃrio