From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F5CEC71141 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 22:36:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:References: List-Owner; bh=MzrdVqQGF81NIXrcNaf04Em73mJbiCuadtB8Wi5iBCI=; b=yiR+eWiNpclqPd DAd15b4PDYpOlGN3O2fswA4L+pP+Scv+t3As1Rx37VS6iRPccNLBT9pT9bf3FIZBeiPsf1vuaLdvy NWF1paqZA7PAP8RUsIPNlLJecINBkXbotQ4WBo8xNOfpTmf9/aQG4SCFHy7oftsvnWPZlBhC2ilTp nb3qoZUC/2UnIb+hCgpYYjwbh1Dc1sG8nUTVShN+mOfvC7mn5hjZp3FE8QT6cBoKbar9T/R2SQ/o8 JykwXhRNb0s9qSrXPFAp5GkEqNY7p+HN1848tbo+UDYRiupYcDvuYQsu46j6S2damo4weNWfjCqvF hcd7m1rwwQ8zB11qVnSA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uPU3Q-0000000BUXG-2adW; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 22:36:20 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([139.178.84.217]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uPSmh-0000000BGCK-29Xm; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 21:15:00 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15455C6327; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 21:12:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1EF3C4CEE3; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 21:14:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1749676498; bh=rzGnHBq3q590xLCbFEMjq52KGw0cqgfhq4h1W1pnXmo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=cLuJmhWiSA+SUB9IKwBOBYkKtWD2pUR8aNEnIyJ/vV00KzrMsSYxVbGxuffGL9ivF EQdHhIaV3Oa9gxz4qr17bku5aKLPEegq5EjBrBQ4/AvkyHYZHGH+iLtPxNG871pbQU gULKcV0XgAEO32DRJosLowzK8zMQ/8Qk0Vl2xltfb1BAd1BrNXNkzqjjeMaIVGfiOg MTrmH/ri8nbkxtdQHmrN1uKIUqQeMPrg+Urg3o8nSRchpv0wVdTSszB2Pt5JPMFomi 4I+FwxLJNelb/8BDzfn0gmXKKhv4kV51sUd7ywnnsqJBZWp8EAhX3CCjUShKOX61R3 7lmgLdZ4FYXxQ== Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:14:56 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Niklas Cassel Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Rob Herring , Bjorn Helgaas , Heiko Stuebner , Wilfred Mallawa , Damien Le Moal , Laszlo Fiat , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI: dw-rockchip: Do not enumerate bus before endpoint devices are ready Message-ID: <20250611211456.GA869983@bhelgaas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250611105140.1639031-7-cassel@kernel.org> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250611_141459_638993_F810B7B6 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 24.15 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 12:51:42PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote: > Commit ec9fd499b9c6 ("PCI: dw-rockchip: Don't wait for link since we can > detect Link Up") changed so that we no longer call dw_pcie_wait_for_link(), > and instead enumerate the bus directly after receiving the Link Up IRQ. > > This means that there is no longer any delay between link up and the bus > getting enumerated. Minor quibble about "no longer any delay": dw_pcie_wait_for_link() doesn't contain any explicit delay *after* we notice the link is up, so we didn't guarantee sufficient delay even before ec9fd499b9c6. If the link came up before the first check, dw_pcie_wait_for_link() didn't delay at all. Otherwise, it delayed 90ms * N, and we have no idea when in the 90ms period the link came up, so the post link-up delay was effectively some random amount between 0 and 90ms. I would propose something like: PCI: dw-rockchip: Wait PCIE_T_RRS_READY_MS after link-up IRQ Per PCIe r6.0, sec 6.6.1, software must generally wait a minimum of 100ms (PCIE_T_RRS_READY_MS) after Link training completes before sending a Configuration Request. Prior to ec9fd499b9c6 ("PCI: dw-rockchip: Don't wait for link since we can detect Link Up"), dw-rockchip used dw_pcie_wait_for_link(), which waited between 0 and 90ms after the link came up before we enumerate the bus, and this was apparently enough for most devices. After ec9fd499b9c6, rockchip_pcie_rc_sys_irq_thread() started enumeration immediately when handling the link-up IRQ, and devices (e.g., Laszlo Fiat's PLEXTOR PX-256M8PeGN NVMe SSD) may not be ready to handle config requests yet. Delay PCIE_T_RRS_READY_MS after the link-up IRQ before starting enumeration. > As per PCIe r6.0, sec 6.6.1, a Downstream Port that supports Link speeds > greater than 5.0 GT/s, software must wait a minimum of 100 ms after Link > training completes before sending a Configuration Request. > > Add this delay in the threaded link up IRQ handler in order to satisfy > the requirements of the PCIe spec. > > Laszlo Fiat reported (off-list) that his PLEXTOR PX-256M8PeGN NVMe SSD is > no longer functional, and simply reverting commit ec9fd499b9c6 ("PCI: > dw-rockchip: Don't wait for link since we can detect Link Up") makes his > SSD functional again. Adding the 100 ms delay as required by the spec also > makes the SSD functional again. > > Cc: Laszlo Fiat > Fixes: ec9fd499b9c6 ("PCI: dw-rockchip: Don't wait for link since we can detect Link Up") I would argue that 0e898eb8df4e ("PCI: rockchip-dwc: Add Rockchip RK356X host controller driver") is the right Fixes: commit here because dw_pcie_wait_for_link() *never* waited the required time, and it's quite possible that other devices don't work correctly. The delay was about 90ms -