From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>,
Karol Herbst <kherbst@redhat.com>, Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>,
Patrick Volkerding <volkerdi@gmail.com>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>, Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Add a quirk to skip 1000 ms default link activation delay on some devices
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:43:49 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200907084349.GZ2495@lahna.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200903181122.GA313490@bjorn-Precision-5520>
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 01:11:22PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:31:47PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > Kai-Heng Feng reported that it takes a long time (> 1 s) to resume
> > Thunderbolt-connected devices from both runtime suspend and system sleep
> > (s2idle).
> >
> > This was because some Downstream Ports that support > 5 GT/s do not also
> > support Data Link Layer Link Active reporting. Per PCIe r5.0 sec 6.6.1:
> >
> > With 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 to the device immediately below
> > that Port. Software can determine when Link training completes by
> > polling the Data Link Layer Link Active bit or by setting up an
> > associated interrupt (see Section 6.7.3.3).
> >
> > Sec 7.5.3.6 requires such Ports to support DLL Link Active reporting,
> > but at least the Intel JHL6240 Thunderbolt 3 Bridge [8086:15c0] and
> > Intel JHL7540 Thunderbolt 3 Bridge [8086:15e7, 8086:15ea, 8086:15ef] do
> > not.
>
> Is there any erratum about this? I'm just hoping to avoid the
> maintenance hassle of adding new devices to the quirk. If Intel
> acknowledges this as a defect and has a plan to fix it, that would
> help a lot. If they *don't* think it's a defect, then maybe they have
> a hint about how we should handle this generically.
I don't think there is any public documentation about these chips so
probably no errata either. I did ask our TBT HW folks about this but so
far did not get any answer.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-07 8:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-31 9:31 [PATCH] PCI: Add a quirk to skip 1000 ms default link activation delay on some devices Mika Westerberg
2020-08-31 18:13 ` Lyude Paul
2020-09-03 18:11 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-09-07 8:43 ` Mika Westerberg [this message]
2020-09-10 1:00 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-09-10 14:24 ` Mika Westerberg
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=20200907084349.GZ2495@lahna.fi.intel.com \
--to=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=bskeggs@redhat.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=kai.heng.feng@canonical.com \
--cc=kherbst@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=lyude@redhat.com \
--cc=volkerdi@gmail.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