Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PCI: controller: dwc: add UniPhier PCIe host controller support

Lorenzo Pieralisi
2018-09-25T16:25:02Z

[+Gustavo, please have a look at INTX/MSI management]

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 06:40:32PM +0900, Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
> This introduces specific glue layer for UniPhier platform to support
> PCIe host controller that is based on the DesignWare PCIe core, and
> this driver supports Root Complex (host) mode.

Please read this thread and apply it to next versions:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=150905742808166&w=2

[...]

> +static int uniphier_pcie_link_up(struct dw_pcie *pci)
> +{
> + struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv = to_uniphier_pcie(pci);
> + u32 val, mask;
> +
> + val = readl(priv->base + PCL_STATUS_LINK);
> + mask = PCL_RDLH_LINK_UP | PCL_XMLH_LINK_UP;
> +
> + return (val & mask) == mask;
> +}
> +
> +static int uniphier_pcie_establish_link(struct dw_pcie *pci)
> +{
> + struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv = to_uniphier_pcie(pci);
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (dw_pcie_link_up(pci))
> + return 0;
> +
> + uniphier_pcie_ltssm_enable(priv);
> +
> + ret = dw_pcie_wait_for_link(pci);
> + if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT) {
> + dev_warn(pci->dev, "Link not up\n");
> + ret = 0;

So if the link is not up we warn, return and all is fine ?

> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void uniphier_pcie_stop_link(struct dw_pcie *pci)
> +{
> + struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv = to_uniphier_pcie(pci);
> +
> + uniphier_pcie_ltssm_disable(priv);
> +}
> +
> +static int uniphier_pcie_intx_map(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int irq,
> + irq_hw_number_t hwirq)
> +{
> + irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &dummy_irq_chip, handle_simple_irq);
> + irq_set_chip_data(irq, domain->host_data);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct irq_domain_ops uniphier_intx_domain_ops = {
> + .map = uniphier_pcie_intx_map,
> +};

I looped in Gustavo since this is not how I expect INTX management
should be done. I do not think there is a DWC INTX generic layer
but I think drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-keystone-dw.c is how
it has to be done.

> +
> +static int uniphier_pcie_init_irq_domain(struct pcie_port *pp)
> +{
> + struct dw_pcie *pci = to_dw_pcie_from_pp(pp);
> + struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv = to_uniphier_pcie(pci);
> + struct device_node *np = pci->dev->of_node;
> + struct device_node *np_intc = of_get_next_child(np, NULL);
> +
> + if (!np_intc) {
> + dev_err(pci->dev, "Failed to get child node\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + priv->irq_domain = irq_domain_add_linear(np_intc, PCI_NUM_INTX,
> + &uniphier_intx_domain_ops,
> + pp);
> + if (!priv->irq_domain) {
> + dev_err(pci->dev, "Failed to get INTx domain\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void uniphier_pcie_irq_enable(struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv)
> +{
> + writel(PCL_RCV_INT_ALL_ENABLE, priv->base + PCL_RCV_INT);
> + writel(PCL_RCV_INTX_ALL_ENABLE, priv->base + PCL_RCV_INTX);
> +}
> +
> +static void uniphier_pcie_irq_disable(struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv)
> +{
> + writel(0, priv->base + PCL_RCV_INT);
> + writel(0, priv->base + PCL_RCV_INTX);
> +}

> +
> +static irqreturn_t uniphier_pcie_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg)

This should not be an IRQ handler (and we should not use
devm_request_irq() for the multiplexed IRQ line), it is a chained
interrupt controller configuration and should be managed by an IRQ
chain, again the way keystone does it seems reasonable to me.

> +{
> + struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv = arg;
> + struct dw_pcie *pci = &priv->pci;
> + u32 val;
> +
> + /* INT for debug */
> + val = readl(priv->base + PCL_RCV_INT);
> +
> + if (val & PCL_CFG_BW_MGT_STATUS)
> + dev_dbg(pci->dev, "Link Bandwidth Management Event\n");
> + if (val & PCL_CFG_LINK_AUTO_BW_STATUS)
> + dev_dbg(pci->dev, "Link Autonomous Bandwidth Event\n");
> + if (val & PCL_CFG_AER_RC_ERR_MSI_STATUS)
> + dev_dbg(pci->dev, "Root Error\n");
> + if (val & PCL_CFG_PME_MSI_STATUS)
> + dev_dbg(pci->dev, "PME Interrupt\n");
> +
> + writel(val, priv->base + PCL_RCV_INT);
> +
> + /* INTx */
> + val = readl(priv->base + PCL_RCV_INTX);
> +
> + if (val & PCL_RADM_INTA_STATUS)
> + generic_handle_irq(irq_find_mapping(priv->irq_domain, 0));
> + if (val & PCL_RADM_INTB_STATUS)
> + generic_handle_irq(irq_find_mapping(priv->irq_domain, 1));
> + if (val & PCL_RADM_INTC_STATUS)
> + generic_handle_irq(irq_find_mapping(priv->irq_domain, 2));
> + if (val & PCL_RADM_INTD_STATUS)
> + generic_handle_irq(irq_find_mapping(priv->irq_domain, 3));

Nit: Do you really need 4 if statements to handle INTX ?

> +
> + writel(val, priv->base + PCL_RCV_INTX);
> +
> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}
> +
> +static irqreturn_t uniphier_pcie_msi_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg)
> +{
> + struct pcie_port *pp = arg;
> +
> + return dw_handle_msi_irq(pp);
> +}

This IRQ handler must be removed, the MSI irq is handled by dwc core.

> +static int uniphier_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
> +{
> + struct dw_pcie *pci = to_dw_pcie_from_pp(pp);
> + int ret;
> +
> + dw_pcie_setup_rc(pp);
> + ret = uniphier_pcie_establish_link(pci);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_MSI))
> + dw_pcie_msi_init(pp);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct dw_pcie_host_ops uniphier_pcie_host_ops = {
> + .host_init = uniphier_pcie_host_init,
> +};
> +
> +static int uniphier_add_pcie_port(struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv,
> + struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct dw_pcie *pci = &priv->pci;
> + struct pcie_port *pp = &pci->pp;
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + pp->root_bus_nr = -1;

Useless initialization, remove it.

(ie dw_pcie_host_init() initializes root_bus_nr for you).

> + pp->ops = &uniphier_pcie_host_ops;
> +
> + pp->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "intx");
> + if (pp->irq < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get intx irq\n");
> + return pp->irq;
> + }
> +
> + ret = devm_request_irq(dev, pp->irq, uniphier_pcie_irq_handler,
> + IRQF_SHARED, "pcie", priv);

This is wrong, you should set-up a chained IRQ for INTX.

I *think* that

ks_pcie_setup_interrupts()

is a good example to start with but I wonder whether it is worth
generalizing the INTX approach to designware as a whole as it was
done for MSIs.

Thoughts ?

> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to request irq %d\n", pp->irq);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ret = uniphier_pcie_init_irq_domain(pp);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_MSI)) {
> + pp->msi_irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "msi");
> + if (pp->msi_irq < 0)
> + return pp->msi_irq;
> +
> + ret = devm_request_irq(dev, pp->msi_irq,
> + uniphier_pcie_msi_irq_handler,
> + IRQF_SHARED, "pcie-msi", pp);

No. With MSI management in DWC core all you need to do is initializing
pp->msi_irq.

Lorenzo

> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "failed to request msi_irq %d\n",
> + pp->msi_irq);
> + return ret;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + ret = dw_pcie_host_init(pp);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to initialize host (%d)\n", ret);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int uniphier_pcie_host_enable(struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(priv->clk);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = reset_control_deassert(priv->rst);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out_clk_disable;
> +
> + uniphier_pcie_init_rc(priv);
> +
> + ret = phy_init(priv->phy);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out_rst_assert;
> +
> + ret = uniphier_pcie_wait_rc(priv);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out_phy_exit;
> +
> + uniphier_pcie_irq_enable(priv);
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +out_phy_exit:
> + phy_exit(priv->phy);
> +out_rst_assert:
> + reset_control_assert(priv->rst);
> +out_clk_disable:
> + clk_disable_unprepare(priv->clk);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void uniphier_pcie_host_disable(struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv)
> +{
> + uniphier_pcie_irq_disable(priv);
> + phy_exit(priv->phy);
> + reset_control_assert(priv->rst);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(priv->clk);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct dw_pcie_ops dw_pcie_ops = {
> + .start_link = uniphier_pcie_establish_link,
> + .stop_link = uniphier_pcie_stop_link,
> + .link_up = uniphier_pcie_link_up,
> +};
> +
> +static int uniphier_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv;
> + struct resource *res;
> + int ret;
> +
> + priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!priv)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + priv->pci.dev = dev;
> + priv->pci.ops = &dw_pcie_ops;
> +
> + res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "dbi");
> + priv->pci.dbi_base = devm_pci_remap_cfg_resource(dev, res);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->pci.dbi_base))
> + return PTR_ERR(priv->pci.dbi_base);
> +
> + res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "link");
> + priv->base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->base))
> + return PTR_ERR(priv->base);
> +
> + priv->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->clk))
> + return PTR_ERR(priv->clk);
> +
> + priv->rst = devm_reset_control_get_shared(dev, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->rst))
> + return PTR_ERR(priv->rst);
> +
> + priv->phy = devm_phy_optional_get(dev, "pcie-phy");
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->phy))
> + return PTR_ERR(priv->phy);
> +
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, priv);
> +
> + ret = uniphier_pcie_host_enable(priv);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return uniphier_add_pcie_port(priv, pdev);
> +}
> +
> +static int uniphier_pcie_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct uniphier_pcie_priv *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> + uniphier_pcie_host_disable(priv);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id uniphier_pcie_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "socionext,uniphier-pcie", },
> + { /* sentinel */ },
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, uniphier_pcie_match);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver uniphier_pcie_driver = {
> + .probe = uniphier_pcie_probe,
> + .remove = uniphier_pcie_remove,
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "uniphier-pcie",
> + .of_match_table = uniphier_pcie_match,
> + },
> +};
> +builtin_platform_driver(uniphier_pcie_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@socionext.com>");
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("UniPhier PCIe host controller driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> --
> 2.7.4
>