Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] PCI: mediatek-gen3: Add Airoha EN7581 support

Lorenzo Bianconi
2024-11-07T21:56:22Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3286 bytes --]

> On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 05:21:45PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > On Nov 07, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 08:39:43AM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 11:40:28PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 06:12:44PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > > > > > > Introduce support for Airoha EN7581 PCIe controller to mediatek-gen3
> > > > > > > > PCIe controller driver.
> > > > > > > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > > Is this where PERST# is asserted? If so, a comment to that effect
> > > > > > > would be helpful. Where is PERST# deasserted? Where are the required
> > > > > > > delays before deassert done?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can add a comment in en7581_pci_enable() describing the PERST issue for
> > > > > > EN7581. Please note we have a 250ms delay in en7581_pci_enable() after
> > > > > > configuring REG_PCI_CONTROL register.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/clk/clk-en7523.c#L396
> > > > >
> > > > > Does that 250ms delay correspond to a PCIe mandatory delay, e.g.,
> > > > > something like PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS? I think it would be nice to have the
> > > > > required PCI delays in this driver if possible so it's easy to verify
> > > > > that they are all covered.
> > > >
> > > > IIRC I just used the delay value used in the vendor sdk. I do not
> > > > have a strong opinion about it but I guess if we move it in the
> > > > pcie-mediatek-gen3 driver, we will need to add it in each driver
> > > > where this clock is used. What do you think?
> > >
> > > I don't know what the 250ms delay is for. If it is for a required PCI
> > > delay, we should use the relevant standard #define for it, and it
> > > should be in the PCI controller driver. Otherwise it's impossible to
> > > verify that all the drivers are doing the correct delays.
> >
> > ack, fine to me. Do you prefer to keep 250ms after clk_bulk_prepare_enable()
> > in mtk_pcie_en7581_power_up() or just use PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS (100)?
> > I can check if 100ms works properly.
>
> It's not clear to me where the relevant events are for these chips.
>
> Do you have access to the PCIe CEM spec? The diagram in r6.0, sec
> 2.2.1, is helpful. It shows the required timings for Power Stable,
> REFCLK Stable, PERST# deassert, etc.
>
> Per sec 2.11.2, PERST# must be asserted for at least 100us (T_PERST),
> PERST# must be asserted for at least 100ms after Power Stable
> (T_PVPERL), and PERST# must be asserted for at least 100us after
> REFCLK Stable.
>
> It would be helpful if we could tell by reading the source where some
> of these critical events happen, and that the relevant delays are
> there. For example, if PERST# is asserted/deasserted by
> "clk_enable()" or similar, it's not at all obvious from the code, so
> we should have a comment to that effect.

I reviewed the vendor sdk and it just do something like in clk_enable():

...
val = readl(0x88);
writel(val | BIT(16) | BIT(29) | BIT(26), 0x88);
/*wait link up*/
mdelay(1000);
...

@Hui.Ma: is it fine use msleep(100) (so PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS) instead of msleep(1000)
(so PCIE_LINK_RETRAIN_TIMEOUT_MS)?

Regards,
Lorenzo

>
> Bjorn

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]