From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com (Troy Kisky) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 10:43:26 -0700 Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/1] pci-imx6: add speed change timeout message In-Reply-To: <201505220131.23825.marex@denx.de> References: <1432233345-10160-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> <201505212319.47974.marex@denx.de> <555E6795.6090009@boundarydevices.com> <201505220131.23825.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: <555F6ABE.7000000@boundarydevices.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 5/21/2015 4:31 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 01:17:41 AM, Troy Kisky wrote: >> On 5/21/2015 2:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 08:35:45 PM, Troy Kisky wrote: >>>> Currently, the timeout is never detected as count >>>> has a value of -1 if a timeout happens, but the code is checking >>>> for 0. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Troy Kisky >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> This patch breaks pcie for imx6sx as my board always times out. >>>> So, if someone could check this on an imx6sx I'd appreciate it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Troy Kisky >>>> --- >>>> >>>> drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c | 18 ++++++++++-------- >>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c >>>> index fdb9536..51be92c 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-imx6.c >>>> @@ -398,20 +398,22 @@ static int imx6_pcie_start_link(struct pcie_port >>>> *pp) >>>> >>>> writel(tmp, pp->dbi_base + PCIE_LINK_WIDTH_SPEED_CONTROL); >>>> >>>> count = 200; >>>> >>>> - while (count--) { >>> >>> Uh, wouldn't "while (--count)" fix this as well, with a smaller patch? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Marek Vasut >> >> Yes, but you'd have an unnecessary usleep_range (no check for finished >> after it) if a timeout happens. > > Oki, then I'll wait for Fabio to ACK this and that'd be it :) > > Thanks! > > Best regards, > Marek Vasut > This patch breaks my imx6sx board, so it shouldn't be applied until there is an explanation and work around of some sort. Thanks Troy