linux-phy.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>
To: neil.armstrong@linaro.org,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>,
	Qiang Yu <quic_qianyu@quicinc.com>
Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
	"Wenbin Yao (Consultant)" <quic_wenbyao@quicinc.com>,
	vkoul@kernel.org, kishon@kernel.org, p.zabel@pengutronix.de,
	abel.vesa@linaro.org, manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org,
	quic_devipriy@quicinc.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] phy: qcom: qmp-pcie: Add PHY register retention support
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 03:24:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56e4ecaa-c79a-41fd-87fc-dad192bc5e30@oss.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d36b497e-4717-4c25-8090-a20efd09f782@linaro.org>

On 29.01.2025 3:19 PM, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
> On 29/01/2025 14:55, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 29.01.2025 2:41 PM, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
>>> On 29/01/2025 12:29, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 29.01.2025 9:29 AM, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
>>>>> On 25/01/2025 14:10, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>> On 24.01.2025 8:08 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>>>>>> + Mayank (with whom I discussed this topic internally)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 02:22:01PM +0800, Qiang Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2025 5:43 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 03:17:39PM +0800, Wenbin Yao (Consultant) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2025 6:36 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 at 11:43, Wenbin Yao <quic_wenbyao@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Qiang Yu <quic_qianyu@quicinc.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, BCR reset and PHY register setting are mandatory for every port
>>>>>>>>>>>> before link training. However, some QCOM PCIe PHYs support no_csr reset.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Different than BCR reset that is used to reset entire PHY including
>>>>>>>>>>>> hardware and register, once no_csr reset is toggled, only PHY hardware will
>>>>>>>>>>>> be reset but PHY registers will be retained,
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, I can't parse this.
>>>>>>>>>> The difference between no_csr reset and bcr reset is that no_csr reset
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't reset the phy registers. If a phy is enabled in UEFI, its registers
>>>>>>>>>> are programed. After Linux boot up, the registers will not be reset but
>>>>>>>>>> keep the value programmed by UEFI if we only do no_csr reset, so we can
>>>>>>>>>> skip phy setting.
>>>>>>>>> Please fix capitalization of the abbreviations (PHY, BCR) and add
>>>>>>>>> similar text to the commit message.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> which means PHY setting can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be skipped during PHY init if PCIe link was enabled in booltloader and only
>>>>>>>>>>>> no_csr is toggled after that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hence, determine whether the PHY has been enabled in bootloader by
>>>>>>>>>>>> verifying QPHY_START_CTRL register. If it is programmed and no_csr reset is
>>>>>>>>>>>> present, skip BCR reset and PHY register setting, so that PCIe link can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> established with no_csr reset only.
>>>>>>>>>>> This doesn't tell us why we want to do so. The general rule is not to
>>>>>>>>>>> depend on the bootloaders at all. The reason is pretty simple: it is
>>>>>>>>>>> hard to update bootloaders, while it is relatively easy to update the
>>>>>>>>>>> kernel. If the hardware team issues any kind of changes to the
>>>>>>>>>>> programming tables, the kernel will get them earlier than the
>>>>>>>>>>> bootloader.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're assuming that if a product has shipped, the sequences used to power up
>>>>>> the PHY in the bootloader (e.g. for NVMe) are already good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If some tragedy happens and an erratum is needed, we can always introduce a
>>>>>> small override with the existing driver infrastructure (i.e. adding a new
>>>>>> entry with a couple registers worth of programming sequence, leaving the other
>>>>>> values in tact)
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming Linux will be always ran directly after the bootloader is a wild assumption.
>>>>
>>>> Situations like
>>>>
>>>> [normal boot chain] -> [... (resets the PHY and doesn't reprogram it)] -> Linux
>>>>
>>>> are both so unlikely and so intentional-by-the-user that it doesn't seem
>>>> worth considering really.
>>>
>>> In embedded/mobile/edge world, definitely, in compute/PC-like market, not really.
>>>
>>> You'll have people add some custom bootloaders, hypervisors, who knows what...
>>
>> I see, however you actually have to intentionally assert the non-NO_CSR PHY
>> reset from said custom bootloaders, hypervisors and whoknowswhats for the
>> programmed sequence to be erased. So I have no idea what the issue is here.
> 
> I won't argue further, but you know as I do that relying on the bootloader state
> is a dangerous game, and we already rely a lot for dsp stuff and we have
> a lot lot of issue related to the UEFI implementation already on production
> devices.
> 
> I'm not against the nocsr stuff, which can be a big win for boot time, but
> honestly not adding a few registers in table seems risky enough, and we should
> probably delay this experiment until we are sure the nocsr stuff works fine.

I tested a range of mobile/compute platforms and only the latter kept
the PCIe PHYs initialized after dropping to the OS. No adverse effects
that I can tell.

Konrad

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy

      reply	other threads:[~2025-02-08  2:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-01-21  9:41 [PATCH 0/2] phy: qcom: qmp-pcie: Add PCIe PHY no_csr reset support Wenbin Yao
2025-01-21  9:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] phy: qcom: pcie: Determine has_nocsr_reset dynamically Wenbin Yao
2025-01-21  9:55   ` Abel Vesa
2025-01-24  7:10   ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-01-21  9:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] phy: qcom: qmp-pcie: Add PHY register retention support Wenbin Yao
2025-01-21 10:36   ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2025-01-22  7:17     ` Wenbin Yao (Consultant)
2025-01-22  9:43       ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2025-01-24  6:22         ` Qiang Yu
2025-01-24  7:08           ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2025-01-25 13:10             ` Konrad Dybcio
2025-01-29  8:29               ` neil.armstrong
2025-01-29 11:29                 ` Konrad Dybcio
2025-01-29 13:41                   ` neil.armstrong
2025-01-29 13:55                     ` Konrad Dybcio
2025-01-29 14:19                       ` neil.armstrong
2025-02-08  2:24                         ` Konrad Dybcio [this message]

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=56e4ecaa-c79a-41fd-87fc-dad192bc5e30@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --to=konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=abel.vesa@linaro.org \
    --cc=dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org \
    --cc=kishon@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-phy@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mani@kernel.org \
    --cc=manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org \
    --cc=neil.armstrong@linaro.org \
    --cc=p.zabel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=quic_devipriy@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_qianyu@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_wenbyao@quicinc.com \
    --cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).