From: Remi Pommarel <repk@triplefau.lt>
To: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
Ellie Reeves <ellierevves@gmail.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: aardvark: Use LTSSM state to build link training flag
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 18:52:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190930165230.GA12568@voidbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190930154017.GF42880@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:40:18PM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Remi Pommarel wrote:
> > Aardvark's PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT flag in its link status register is not
> > implemented and does not reflect the actual link training state (the
> > flag is always set to 0). In order to support link re-training feature
> > this flag has to be emulated. The Link Training and Status State
> > Machine (LTSSM) flag in Aardvark LMI config register could be used as
> > a link training indicator. Indeed if the LTSSM is in L0 or upper state
> > then link training has completed (see [1]).
> >
> > Unfortunately because after asking a link retraining it takes a while
> > for the LTSSM state to become less than 0x10 (due to L0s to recovery
> > state transition delays), LTSSM can still be in L0 while link training
> > has not finished yet. So this waits for link to be in recovery or lesser
> > state before returning after asking for a link retrain.
> >
> > [1] "PCI Express Base Specification", REV. 4.0
> > PCI Express, February 19 2014, Table 4-14
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Remi Pommarel <repk@triplefau.lt>
> > ---
> > Changes since v1:
> > - Rename retraining flag field
> > - Fix DEVCTL register writing
> >
> > Changes since v2:
> > - Rewrite patch logic so it is more legible
> >
> > Please note that I will unlikely be able to answer any comments from May
> > 24th to June 10th.
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > index 134e0306ff00..8803083b2174 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > @@ -180,6 +180,8 @@
> > #define LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 10
> > #define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN 90000
> > #define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX 100000
> > +#define RETRAIN_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 10
> > +#define RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_US 2000
> >
> > #define MSI_IRQ_NUM 32
> >
> > @@ -239,6 +241,17 @@ static int advk_pcie_wait_for_link(struct advk_pcie *pcie)
> > return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > }
> >
> > +static void advk_pcie_wait_for_retrain(struct advk_pcie *pcie)
> > +{
> > + size_t retries;
> > +
> > + for (retries = 0; retries < RETRAIN_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES; ++retries) {
> > + if (!advk_pcie_link_up(pcie))
> > + break;
> > + udelay(RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_US);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > static void advk_pcie_setup_hw(struct advk_pcie *pcie)
> > {
> > u32 reg;
> > @@ -426,11 +439,20 @@ advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_read(struct pci_bridge_emul *bridge,
> > return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> > }
> >
> > + case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL: {
> > + /* u32 contains both PCI_EXP_LNKCTL and PCI_EXP_LNKSTA */
> > + u32 val = advk_readl(pcie, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg) &
> > + ~(PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT << 16);
>
> The commit message says "the flag is always set to 0" - therefore I guess
> you don't *need* to mask out the LT bit here? I assume this is just
> belt-and-braces but thought I'd check incase I've misunderstood or if your
> commit message is inaccurate.
>
> In any case masking out the bit (or adding a comment) makes this code more
> readable as the reader doesn't need to know what the hardware does with this
> bit.
Actually vendor eventually responded that the bit was reserved, but
during my tests it remains to 0.
So yes I am masking this out mainly for belt-and-braces and legibility.
> > + if (!advk_pcie_link_up(pcie))
> > + val |= (PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT << 16);
> > + *value = val;
> > + return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> > + }
> > +
> > case PCI_CAP_LIST_ID:
> > case PCI_EXP_DEVCAP:
> > case PCI_EXP_DEVCTL:
> > case PCI_EXP_LNKCAP:
> > - case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL:
> > *value = advk_readl(pcie, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> > return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> > default:
> > @@ -447,8 +469,13 @@ advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_write(struct pci_bridge_emul *bridge,
> >
> > switch (reg) {
> > case PCI_EXP_DEVCTL:
> > + advk_writel(pcie, new, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> > + break;
>
> Why is this here?
>
Before PCI_EXP_DEVCTL and PCI_EXP_LNKCTL were doing the same thing, but
as now PCI_EXP_LNKCTL does extra things (i.e. wait for link to
successfully retrain), they do have different behaviours.
So this is here so PCI_EXP_DEVCTL keeps its old behaviour and do not
wait for link retrain in case an unrelated (PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RL) bit is
set.
--
Remi
> > +
> > case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL:
> > advk_writel(pcie, new, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> > + if (new & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RL)
> > + advk_pcie_wait_for_retrain(pcie);
> > break;
> >
> > case PCI_EXP_RTCTL:
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-30 16:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-22 21:33 [PATCH v3] PCI: aardvark: Use LTSSM state to build link training flag Remi Pommarel
2019-08-06 18:50 ` Remi Pommarel
2019-09-25 12:32 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2019-09-30 15:40 ` Andrew Murray
2019-09-30 16:52 ` Remi Pommarel [this message]
2019-10-01 8:05 ` Andrew Murray
2019-10-13 10:34 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-10-14 10:01 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-10-14 13:06 ` Remi Pommarel
2019-10-14 13:45 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-10-14 14:00 ` Remi Pommarel
2019-10-14 14:18 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-10-14 16:50 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
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=20190930165230.GA12568@voidbox \
--to=repk@triplefau.lt \
--cc=andrew.murray@arm.com \
--cc=ellierevves@gmail.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).