On 4/17/2025 5:13 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Hi Terry,
>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>>>> index d3068f5cc767..d1ef0c676ff8 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c
>>>> @@ -977,6 +977,31 @@ void pci_aer_unmask_internal_errors(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(pci_aer_unmask_internal_errors, "CXL");
>>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * pci_aer_mask_internal_errors - mask internal errors
>>>> + * @dev: pointer to the pcie_dev data structure
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Masks internal errors in the Uncorrectable and Correctable Error
>>>> + * Mask registers.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Note: AER must be enabled and supported by the device which must be
>>>> + * checked in advance, e.g. with pcie_aer_is_native().
>>>> + */
>>>> +void pci_aer_mask_internal_errors(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int aer = dev->aer_cap;
>>>> + u32 mask;
>>>> +
>>>> + pci_read_config_dword(dev, aer + PCI_ERR_UNCOR_MASK, &mask);
>>>> + mask |= PCI_ERR_UNC_INTN;
>>>> + pci_write_config_dword(dev, aer + PCI_ERR_UNCOR_MASK, mask);
>>>> +
>>> It does an extra clear we don't need, but....
>>> pci_clear_and_set_config_dword(dev, aer + PCI_ERR_UNCOR_MASK,
>>> 0, PCI_ERR_UNC_INTN);
>>>
>>> is at very least shorter than the above 3 lines.
>> Doing so will overwrite the existing mask. CXL normally only uses AER UIE/CIE but if the device
>> happens to lose alternate training and no longer identifies as a CXL device than this mask
>> value would be critical for reporting PCI AER errors and would need UCE/CE enabled (other
>> than UIE/CIE).
> I'm not seeing that. Implementation of pci_clear_and_set_config_dword() is:
> void pci_clear_and_set_config_dword(const struct pci_dev *dev, int pos,
> u32 clear, u32 set)
> {
> u32 val;
>
> pci_read_config_dword(dev, pos, &val);
> val &= ~clear;
> val |= set;
> pci_write_config_dword(dev, pos, val);
> }
>
> With clear parameter as zero it will do the same the open coded
> version you have above as the ~clear will be all 1s and hence
> &= ~clear has no affect.
>
> Arguably we could add pci_clear_config_dword() and pci_set_config_dword()
> that both take one fewer parameter but I guess that is not worth
> the bother.
>
> Jonathan
>
Got it. I'll change to use pci_clear_and_set_config_dword().
-Terry
>
