Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:11:27 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Ngie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r303497 - head/sys/dev/pci Message-ID: <2350179.pmqWqTZJad@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <FDD39CA5-E545-4D72-A2CD-550633B2900E@gmail.com> References: <201607291754.u6THsLl5098040@repo.freebsd.org> <FDD39CA5-E545-4D72-A2CD-550633B2900E@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, July 29, 2016 11:04:01 AM Ngie Cooper wrote: > > > On Jul 29, 2016, at 10:54, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > > Author: jhb > > Date: Fri Jul 29 17:54:21 2016 > > New Revision: 303497 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/303497 > > > > Log: > > Add a loader tunable (hw.pci.enable_pcie_hp) to disable PCI-e HotPlug. > > > > Some systems and/or devices (such as riser cards) do not include a > > non-compliant implementation of PCI-e HotPlug that can result in devices > > not being attached (e.g. the HotPlug code might assume that a card is > > being unplugged and will power the slot off and detach it). This > > tunable can be set to 0 to disable support for PCI-e HotPlug ignoring > > the incorrect HotPlug state on these slots. > > > > PR: 211081 > > Reported by: Sergey Renkas <serg_ic@mail.ru> (SuperMicro X7 riser card) > > Reported by: Jeffrey E Pieper <jeffrey.e.pieper@intel.com> > > (Intel X520 adapter) > > MFC after: 1 week > > Relnotes: yes > > Should this be done on a per-bus basis? For now this is just a way to disable it globally. If need be we could add a separate hint to do it per-bridge (hint.pcib.X.hp=0/1 or some such). I'm still working with the Intel folks to see if I can narrow down exactly what makes this chip unhappy to see if I can include a workaround. Both of these devices use a chip from PLX to manage an internal PCI bridge. In both cases the PLX chip reports that a mechnical latch is open (PCI HP supports an optional latch that can be opened to release a card so it can be removed), but neither device has a real latch (so the sensor has not been wired correctly in either device). However, just bypassing the sensor check isn't sufficient to allow the devices behind the bridge to probe. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2350179.pmqWqTZJad>