Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: cadence: Fix Gen2 Link Retraining process

[Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>]

On 09-05-2023 23:54, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 12:37:31PM +0530, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
>> Bjorn,
>>
>> Thank you for reviewing the patch.
>>
>> On 09/05/23 02:44, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:38:00PM +0530, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
>>>> The Link Retraining process is initiated to account for the Gen2 defect in
>>>> the Cadence PCIe controller in J721E SoC. The errata corresponding to this
>>>> is i2085, documented at:
>>>> https://www.ti.com/lit/er/sprz455c/sprz455c.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The existing workaround implemented for the errata waits for the Data Link
>>>> initialization to complete and assumes that the link retraining process
>>>> at the Physical Layer has completed. However, it is possible that the
>>>> Physical Layer training might be ongoing as indicated by the
>>>> PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT bit in the PCI_EXP_LNKSTA register.
>>>>
>>>> Fix the existing workaround, to ensure that the Physical Layer training
>>>> has also completed, in addition to the Data Link initialization.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 4740b969aaf5 ("PCI: cadence: Retrain Link to work around Gen2 training defect")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes from v1:
>>>> 1. Collect Reviewed-by tag from Vignesh Raghavendra.
>>>> 2. Rebase on next-20230315.
>>>>
>>>> v1:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230102075656.260333-1-s-vadapalli@ti.com
>>>>
>>>>  .../controller/cadence/pcie-cadence-host.c    | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pcie-cadence-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pcie-cadence-host.c
>>>> index 940c7dd701d6..5b14f7ee3c79 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pcie-cadence-host.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pcie-cadence-host.c
>>>> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
>>>>  
>>>>  #include "pcie-cadence.h"
>>>>  
>>>> +#define LINK_RETRAIN_TIMEOUT HZ
>>>> +
>>>>  static u64 bar_max_size[] = {
>>>>  	[RP_BAR0] = _ULL(128 * SZ_2G),
>>>>  	[RP_BAR1] = SZ_2G,
>>>> @@ -77,6 +79,27 @@ static struct pci_ops cdns_pcie_host_ops = {
>>>>  	.write		= pci_generic_config_write,
>>>>  };
>>>>  
>>>> +static int cdns_pcie_host_training_complete(struct cdns_pcie *pcie)
>>>
>>> This is kind of weird because it's named like a predicate, i.e., "this
>>> function tells me whether link training is complete", but it returns
>>> *zero* for success.
>>>
>>> This is the opposite of j721e_pcie_link_up(), which returns "true"
>>> when the link is up, so code like this reads naturally:
>>>
>>>   if (pcie->ops->link_up(pcie))
>>>     /* do something if the link is up */
>>
>> I agree. The function name can be changed to indicate that it is
>> waiting for completion rather than indicating completion. If this is
>> the only change, I will post a patch to fix it. On the other hand,
>> based on your comments in the next section, I am thinking of an
>> alternative approach of merging the current
>> "cdns_pcie_host_training_complete()" function's operation as well
>> into the "cdns_pcie_host_wait_for_link()" function. If this is
>> acceptable, I will post a different patch and the name change patch
>> won't be necessary.
> 
> Yeah, sorry, I meant to delete this part of my response after I wrote
> the one below.
> 
>>>> @@ -118,6 +141,10 @@ static int cdns_pcie_retrain(struct cdns_pcie *pcie)
>>>>  		cdns_pcie_rp_writew(pcie, pcie_cap_off + PCI_EXP_LNKCTL,
>>>>  				    lnk_ctl);
>>>>  
>>>> +		ret = cdns_pcie_host_training_complete(pcie);
>>>> +		if (ret)
>>>> +			return ret;
>>>> +
>>>>  		ret = cdns_pcie_host_wait_for_link(pcie);
>>>
>>> It seems a little clumsy that we wait for two things in succession:
>>>
>>>   - cdns_pcie_host_training_complete() waits up to 1s for
>>>     PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT to be cleared
>>>
>>>   - cdns_pcie_host_wait_for_link() waits between .9s and 1s for
>>>     LINK_UP_DL_COMPLETED on j721e (and not at all for other platforms)
>>
>> Is it acceptable to merge "cdns_pcie_host_training_complete()" into
>> "cdns_pcie_host_wait_for_link()"?
> 
> That's what I'm proposing.  Maybe someone who is more familiar with
> Cadence would have an argument against it, but I think making it
> structurally the same as dw_pcie_wait_for_link() would be a good
> thing.

Thank you for the confirmation. I will work on it and post a patch.

> 
> Bjorn

-- 
Regards,
Siddharth.