From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>
Cc: tjoseph@cadence.com, lpieralisi@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org,
kw@linux.com, bhelgaas@google.com, nadeem@cadence.com,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, vigneshr@ti.com,
srk@ti.com, nm@ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: cadence: Fix Gen2 Link Retraining process
Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 16:14:30 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230508211430.GA1185556@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230315070800.1615527-1-s-vadapalli@ti.com>
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 */
> +{
> + u32 pcie_cap_off = CDNS_PCIE_RP_CAP_OFFSET;
> + unsigned long end_jiffies;
> + u16 lnk_stat;
> +
> + /* Wait for link training to complete. Exit after timeout. */
> + end_jiffies = jiffies + LINK_RETRAIN_TIMEOUT;
> + do {
> + lnk_stat = cdns_pcie_rp_readw(pcie, pcie_cap_off + PCI_EXP_LNKSTA);
> + if (!(lnk_stat & PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT))
> + break;
> + usleep_range(0, 1000);
> + } while (time_before(jiffies, end_jiffies));
> +
> + if (!(lnk_stat & PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT))
> + return 0;
> +
> + return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +}
> +
> static int cdns_pcie_host_wait_for_link(struct cdns_pcie *pcie)
> {
> struct device *dev = pcie->dev;
> @@ -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)
dw_pcie_wait_for_link() is basically similar but has a single wait
loop around the dw_pcie_link_up() callback. Several of those
callbacks check multiple things. Can we do the same here?
Is the "host" in the cdns_pcie_host_wait_for_link() name necessary?
Maybe it could be cdns_pcie_wait_for_link() to be similar to
dw_pcie_wait_for_link()? Or, if "host" is necessary, it could be
cdns_host_pcie_wait_for_link() so it matches the same
"pcie_wait_for_link" grep pattern as most of the others?
> }
> return ret;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-08 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-15 7:08 [PATCH v2] PCI: cadence: Fix Gen2 Link Retraining process Siddharth Vadapalli
2023-03-29 14:41 ` Raghavendra, Vignesh
2023-03-29 17:08 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-03-30 4:22 ` Siddharth Vadapalli
2023-03-30 17:02 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-04-18 3:49 ` Siddharth Vadapalli
2023-04-21 8:57 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2023-03-30 8:45 ` Vignesh Raghavendra
2023-04-21 9:09 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2023-05-08 21:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2023-05-09 7:07 ` Siddharth Vadapalli
2023-05-09 18:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-10 13:17 ` Siddharth Vadapalli
2023-06-06 16:20 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-06-07 9:17 ` Siddharth Vadapalli
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=20230508211430.GA1185556@bhelgaas \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=kw@linux.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=nadeem@cadence.com \
--cc=nm@ti.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=s-vadapalli@ti.com \
--cc=srk@ti.com \
--cc=tjoseph@cadence.com \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.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