From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f171.google.com (mail-pg1-f171.google.com [209.85.215.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAF3019D067 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:02:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731398546; cv=none; b=h4wyQGW9B62zvQiOpX35GdTPjry2EUgdy0pnhRDmwkmsYih3MXCOn4jVtHvv8CJmkrkMvb5KftYyUu024wL63GsvVLFCAfzb0fNKJGe4GWrOKrzsyFDOru5deBFcS3hBb51YYVoeD+yF5K0cpbEYGZAFyI2UlRe1+PwO4flSJss= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731398546; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Gdzfz6nuF3Mv2sztvCsvN7kvDs3V6ahV1Si39NMWwFI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=T8+hiMpv+SyIW08TdA1mu4we/K12NvbDLploOvDf1gCvW/pyGu3F0sDJNuS1W8f496EWrFHPCSIL8/cpYSBZtiMUh2f5iSS5A1sC3kZKuhn9huZiJhTz4lbsi1+bHBodMqPl/X45Xf8WzCoatw3cSODKhzPkCaveCgbwO9Ij5GU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=WSuvlQDK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="WSuvlQDK" Received: by mail-pg1-f171.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-7f12ba78072so4044279a12.2 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 00:02:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1731398544; x=1732003344; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tdmcDJQb0kxtWtYlqvMLgav0HJpmDO9A2F6bQ8vcVVk=; b=WSuvlQDKMgONIbtNGPDIFvCb70GeFTOzCgLON72X9RpI+9yUZWiMhpqTKg83ZIVPUH TDIqhdOPuFTJYgXLhTLuKKI/7MekeTLommHP+nVt676qTztAzRAqhtGtUykFm+Xk4Zy2 Kagmskip+7WnTm++tTxv1HUPn+6uSX2LZSXBTAzNTDYNyA0iAysSiYBTt6i4niOQ3PLI cuV31HiUJLdmB37a0nYliTW/yeh8c6AU1MWhSpCPnmxmUwu/4S03yKJF9jfceI9CsKWa 2LJICTT8G/BOAb00htrr6piqE2PZlleg2tL/EgXh60Pyv3yzsUhluvZvxkgRNZVID3VT Yrow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731398544; x=1732003344; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tdmcDJQb0kxtWtYlqvMLgav0HJpmDO9A2F6bQ8vcVVk=; b=g8kUeFr52KAzV6HfijXcz3UfoTjjJZl9Q/mCSTnTpD9amfkZerZHveVBpGA390PtMb h/qfzU2l9w9rfaCJLcOx/a+YqZe5YvCoQLHMQm2qmFnZq2/HKC78R9WxZ7aaP3lAWdAN vQ+55t426gcqO7SM1sHKTNp7mIVF1iMS1IJBpdG0EME7+nEeZ2yIjEcZOO8ZvSREiRRI GV7K6cRt85Qc5AI8eHTrupqBZGC4bhndOaKJobow0k1698JG8htxcZPgGlbFdCG6Mjwr Oum/l/AkSGzmsPGxd9p5LoKXX4wiQabp1zi3t6pkgTykRmGIQlKvepT0steOti8n8DJG dUyg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWUjaeTqZVMKVo63gLMTWDvxrhjWiO7u5kPIosF85imtyelXYpPUSNJ4bpb54RevlyZb7XSLOaPJ5s=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YziuPbiaVQ0GKuGMqUGd37BwUA1asUdF0fkje7yF/HskU0K06FJ DO8AQKCqktOrXn2OSeJRgEc7QZT0eQRRHnLbQG0TRfh+N3WDufcRH+i33bju9g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGxmuoFDE3JbNsNx57MeL6QGeI+BKO4bDu8QDdKhoNLOa8X4pga/l3/7VWn1aeLrpGmDD9L0Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4a87:b0:2e2:aef9:8f60 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2e9b14ddb3bmr20379534a91.0.1731398544255; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 00:02:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from thinkpad ([117.213.103.248]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-2e9b23a510bsm8093555a91.15.2024.11.12.00.02.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 12 Nov 2024 00:02:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 13:32:16 +0530 From: Manivannan Sadhasivam To: Frank Li Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Richard Zhu , jingoohan1@gmail.com, bhelgaas@google.com, lpieralisi@kernel.org, kw@linux.com, robh@kernel.org, imx@lists.linux.dev, kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PCI: dwc: Clean up some unnecessary codes in dw_pcie_suspend_noirq() Message-ID: <20241112080216.6kzdybe2su5ozp44@thinkpad> References: <20241107111334.n23ebkbs3uhxivvm@thinkpad> <20241108002425.GA1631063@bhelgaas> <20241111060902.mdbksegqj5rblqsn@thinkpad> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 12:42:50PM -0500, Frank Li wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:39:02AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 06:24:25PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 11:13:34AM +0000, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 04:44:55PM +0800, Richard Zhu wrote: > > > > > Before sending PME_TURN_OFF, don't test the LTSSM stat. Since it's > > > > > safe to send PME_TURN_OFF message regardless of whether the link > > > > > is up or down. So, there would be no need to test the LTSSM stat > > > > > before sending PME_TURN_OFF message. > > > > > > > > What is the incentive to send PME_Turn_Off when link is not up? > > > > > > There's no need to send PME_Turn_Off when link is not up. > > > > > > But a link-up check is inherently racy because the link may go down > > > between the check and the PME_Turn_Off. Since it's impossible for > > > software to guarantee the link is up, the Root Port should be able to > > > tolerate attempts to send PME_Turn_Off when the link is down. > > > > > > So IMO there's no need to check whether the link is up, and checking > > > gives the misleading impression that "we know the link is up and > > > therefore sending PME_Turn_Off is safe." > > > > > > > I agree that the check is racy (not sure if there is a better way to avoid > > that), but if you send the PME_Turn_Off unconditionally, then it will result in > > L23 Ready timeout and users will see the error message. > > > > > > > Remove the L2 poll too, after the PME_TURN_OFF message is sent > > > > > out. Because the re-initialization would be done in > > > > > dw_pcie_resume_noirq(). > > > > > > > > As Krishna explained, host needs to wait until the endpoint acks the > > > > message (just to give it some time to do cleanups). Then only the > > > > host can initiate D3Cold. It matters when the device supports L2. > > > > > > The important thing here is to be clear about the *reason* to poll for > > > L2 and the *event* that must wait for L2. > > > > > > I don't have any DesignWare specs, but when dw_pcie_suspend_noirq() > > > waits for DW_PCIE_LTSSM_L2_IDLE, I think what we're doing is waiting > > > for the link to be in the L2/L3 Ready pseudo-state (PCIe r6.0, sec > > > 5.2, fig 5-1). > > > > > > L2 and L3 are states where main power to the downstream component is > > > off, i.e., the component is in D3cold (r6.0, sec 5.3.2), so there is > > > no link in those states. > > > > > > The PME_Turn_Off handshake is part of the process to put the > > > downstream component in D3cold. I think the reason for this handshake > > > is to allow an orderly shutdown of that component before main power is > > > removed. > > > > > > When the downstream component receives PME_Turn_Off, it will stop > > > scheduling new TLPs, but it may already have TLPs scheduled but not > > > yet sent. If power were removed immediately, they would be lost. My > > > understanding is that the link will not enter L2/L3 Ready until the > > > components on both ends have completed whatever needs to be done with > > > those TLPs. (This is based on the L2/L3 discussion in the Mindshare > > > PCIe book; I haven't found clear spec citations for all of it.) > > > > > > I think waiting for L2/L3 Ready is to keep us from turning off main > > > power when the components are still trying to dispose of those TLPs. > > > > > > > Not just disposing TLPs as per the spec, most endpoints also need to reset their > > state machine as well (if there is a way for the endpoint sw to delay sending > > L23 Ready). > > > > > So I think every controller that turns off main power needs to wait > > > for L2/L3 Ready. > > > > > > There's also a requirement that software wait at least 100 ns after > > > L2/L3 Ready before turning off refclock and main power (sec > > > 5.3.3.2.1). > > > > > > > Right. Usually, the delay after PERST# assert would make sure this, but in > > layerscape driver (user of dw_pcie_suspend_noirq) I don't see power/refclk > > removal. > > > > Richard Zhu/Frank, thoughts? > > Generally, power/refclk remove when system enter sleep state. There is > signal "suspend_request_b", which connect to PMIC. After CPU trigger this > signnal, PMIC will turn off (pre fused) some power rail. > > Refclk(come from SOC chip), OSC will be shutdown when send out > "suspend_request_b". > Thanks for clarifying! Then it would be better to add the 100ns delay after receiving the L23 Ready message from endpoint. - Mani -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்