public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: "Manivannan Sadhasivam" <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Heiko Stuebner" <heiko@sntech.de>,
	"Wilfred Mallawa" <wilfred.mallawa@wdc.com>,
	"Damien Le Moal" <dlemoal@kernel.org>,
	"Hans Zhang" <18255117159@163.com>,
	"Laszlo Fiat" <laszlo.fiat@proton.me>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kwilczynski@kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] PCI: dw-rockchip: Do not enumerate bus before endpoint devices are ready
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 14:28:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aEGNefEgf56P-mBM@ryzen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250604184445.GA567382@bhelgaas>

On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 01:44:45PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 10:40:09PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> 
> > > If we add a 100 ms sleep after wait_for_link(), then I suggest that we
> > > also reduce LINK_WAIT_SLEEP_MS to something shorter.
> > 
> > No. The 900ms sleep is to make sure that we wait 1s before erroring out
> > assuming that the device is not present. This is mandated by the spec. So
> > irrespective of the delay we add *after* link up, we should try to detect the
> > link up for ~1s.
> 
> I think it would be sensible for dw_pcie_wait_for_link() to check for
> link up more frequently, i.e., reduce LINK_WAIT_SLEEP_MS and increase
> LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES.
> 
> If LINK_WAIT_SLEEP_MS * LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES is for the 1.0s
> mentioned in sec 6.6.1, seems like maybe we should make a generic
> #define for it so we could include the spec reference and use it
> across all drivers.  And resolve the question of 900ms vs 1000ms.

Like Bjorn mentioned, when I wrote reduce LINK_WAIT_SLEEP_MS,
I simply meant that we should poll for link up more frequently.

But yes, if we reduce LINK_WAIT_SLEEP_MS we should bump
LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES to not change the current max wait time.


Bjorn, should I send something out after -rc1, or did you want
to work on this yourself?


Kind regards,
Niklas


  reply	other threads:[~2025-06-05 12:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-05-06  7:39 [PATCH v2 0/4] PCI: dwc: Link Up IRQ fixes Niklas Cassel
2025-05-06  7:39 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] PCI: dw-rockchip: Do not enumerate bus before endpoint devices are ready Niklas Cassel
2025-05-06 11:32   ` Laszlo Fiat
2025-05-06 22:23   ` Wilfred Mallawa
2025-05-28 22:42   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-05-30 13:57     ` Niklas Cassel
2025-05-30 15:21       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-05-30 15:59     ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-05-30 17:19       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-05-30 17:24         ` Niklas Cassel
2025-05-30 19:43           ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-05-31  6:47             ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-06-03 14:08               ` Niklas Cassel
2025-06-03 18:12                 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-06-04 11:40                   ` Niklas Cassel
2025-06-04 17:10                     ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-06-04 18:44                       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-06-05 12:28                         ` Niklas Cassel [this message]
2025-06-05 13:22                           ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-06-05 19:27                           ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-05-06  7:39 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] PCI: dw-rockchip: Replace PERST sleep time with proper macro Niklas Cassel
2025-05-06  9:07   ` Hans Zhang
2025-05-06 11:36   ` Laszlo Fiat
2025-05-06 22:24   ` Wilfred Mallawa
2025-05-06 14:33 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] PCI: dwc: Link Up IRQ fixes Niklas Cassel
2025-05-06 14:51   ` Laszlo Fiat
2025-05-13 10:53 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-05-13 14:07   ` Niklas Cassel
2025-05-15 17:33     ` Laszlo Fiat
2025-05-16 10:00       ` Niklas Cassel
2025-05-16 18:48         ` Laszlo Fiat
2025-05-19  9:44           ` Niklas Cassel
2025-05-19 12:10             ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-05-19 12:37 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aEGNefEgf56P-mBM@ryzen \
    --to=cassel@kernel.org \
    --cc=18255117159@163.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
    --cc=heiko@sntech.de \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=kw@linux.com \
    --cc=kwilczynski@kernel.org \
    --cc=laszlo.fiat@proton.me \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
    --cc=manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=wilfred.mallawa@wdc.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox