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

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

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.

> 
>> +{
>> +	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)

Is it acceptable to merge "cdns_pcie_host_training_complete()" into
"cdns_pcie_host_wait_for_link()"?

> 
> 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?

I assume you are referring to merging the functions together?

> 
> 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?

If the functions are merged, I believe that the word "host" can be dropped in
the new function which can be named "cdns_pcie_wait_for_link()" as suggested by you.

Please let me know.

> 
>>  	}
>>  	return ret;

-- 
Regards,
Siddharth.