From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67ABEEB64DC for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 06:52:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230072AbjGKGwD (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2023 02:52:03 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34810 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229469AbjGKGv6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2023 02:51:58 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F750136; Mon, 10 Jul 2023 23:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F5766132C; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 06:51:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAC7EC433C8; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 06:51:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1689058316; bh=Z9ivX8eJ/lXQ9bZDCm1ns2xF/81RV2oFuTHoehDONQA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=oSEWMiJPxvW8OHWpMAbd/2Km6jkdjAKbe4El+4QvNxNT5id8rVklKpLjtMNR1N4Jq AU7DU0t1Mjurutc/4HqrTD3uLjnUbsIjjWsQ8u9K7zLOk6rQ++a9+7nteuTgUWZi31 Sc8P1nQ7fYLFGmPAbSfC1CGoUdv36J0aBU4fdI9uNnkmuCf5PdADoq5TSTLpFYQYws 2w47CqvnhbPfm5SwftsRSvrbXMUPP1XMC47ZJTWPcOU0AzChLy378s5KiIO95EpN6r 8+TaUp1VlDVIarwBBa6EQ8pGBVuQl8/D8ZPySUetYy+b9iEBWRlBjoP7yG8KBvFIQA 37rRBffoBenvw== Received: from johan by xi.lan with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1qJ7EV-00070G-26; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:52:24 +0200 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:52:23 +0200 From: Johan Hovold To: Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= Cc: Ajay Agarwal , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Jingoo Han , Gustavo Pimentel , Rob Herring , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson , Sajid Dalvi Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "PCI: dwc: Wait for link up only if link is started" Message-ID: References: <20230706082610.26584-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org> <20230706125811.GD4808@thinkpad> <20230710170608.GA346178@rocinante> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20230710170608.GA346178@rocinante> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 02:06:08AM +0900, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote: > > > > > > Finally, note that the intel-gw driver is the only driver currently not > > > > > > providing a start_link callback and instead starts the link in its > > > > > > host_init callback, and which may avoid an additional one-second timeout > > > > > > during probe by making the link-up wait conditional. If anyone cares, > > > > > > that can be done in a follow-up patch with a proper motivation. > The whole conversation above about the intel-gw driver: would something > need to be addressed here? Or can I pick the suggested fix? No, it's just another indication that the offending commit was confused. All mainline drivers already start the link before that wait-for-link-up, so the commit in question makes very little sense. That's why I prefer reverting it, so as to not pollute the git logs (e.g. for git blame) with misleading justifications. > > > My apologies for adding this regression in some of the SOCs. > > > May I suggest to keep my patch and make the following change instead? > > > This shall keep the existing behavior as is, and save the boot time > > > for drivers that do not define the start_link()? > [...] > > > I just realized that Fabio pushed exactly the same patch as I suggested > > here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230704122635.1362156-1-festevam@gmail.com/. > > I think it is better we take it instead of reverting my commit. > > Will do. I will also make sure that we have correct attributions in place. As I mentioned in the commit message, I think the commit should just be reverted and if there's a valid argument to be made for a similar type of change (without the breakage), that can be done as a follow-up with a proper motivation. Johan