From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] PCI: Cleanup link activation wait logic
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 15:28:40 +0200 (EET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ce73f41a-b529-726f-ee4e-9d0e0cee3320@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2402021359450.15781@angie.orcam.me.uk>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1378 bytes --]
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
> > 1. Change pcie_failed_link_retrain() to return true only if link was
> > retrained successfully due to the Target Speed quirk. If there is no
> > LBMS set, return false instead of true because no retraining was
> > even attempted. This seems correct considering expectations of both
> > callers of pcie_failed_link_retrain().
>
> You change the logic here in that the second conditional isn't run if the
> first has not. This is wrong, unclamping is not supposed to rely on LBMS.
> It is supposed to be always run and any failure has to be reported too, as
> a retraining error.
Now that (I think) I fully understand the intent of the second
condition/block one additional question occurred to me.
How is the 2nd condition even supposed to work in the current place when
firmware has pre-arranged the 2.5GT/s resctriction? Wouldn't the link come
up fine in that case and the quirk code is not called at all since the
link came up successfully?
Yet another thing in this quirk code I don't like is how it can leaves the
target speed to 2.5GT/s when the quirk fails to get the link working
(which actually does happen in the disconnection cases because DLLLA won't
be set so the target speed will not be restored).
--
i.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-16 13:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-02 13:41 [PATCH 1/1] PCI: Cleanup link activation wait logic Ilpo Järvinen
2024-02-02 14:22 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2024-02-02 14:31 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-02-10 1:50 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2024-02-26 12:53 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2024-02-16 13:28 ` Ilpo Järvinen [this message]
2024-02-16 13:58 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2024-02-16 14:23 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-02-26 12:43 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
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=ce73f41a-b529-726f-ee4e-9d0e0cee3320@linux.intel.com \
--to=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=macro@orcam.me.uk \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
/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