linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
Cc: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	jonathanh@nvidia.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, kthota@nvidia.com,
	mmaddireddy@nvidia.com, sagar.tv@gmail.com,
	Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>,
	Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Add CRS timeout for pci_device_is_present()
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:36:12 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191114183612.GA215974@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191113112043.GA329424@ulmo>

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:20:43PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:58:44PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

> > My question is whether this wait should be connected somehow with
> > platform_pci_set_power_state().  It sounds like the tegra host
> > controller driver already does the platform-specific delays, and I'm
> > not sure it's reasonable for platform_pci_set_power_state() to do the
> > CRS polling.  Maybe something like this?  I'd really like to get
> > Rafael's thinking here.
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > index e7982af9a5d8..052fa316c917 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > @@ -964,9 +964,14 @@ void pci_refresh_power_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >   */
> >  void pci_power_up(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >  {
> > +	pci_power_state_t prev_state = dev->current_state;
> > +
> >  	if (platform_pci_power_manageable(dev))
> >  		platform_pci_set_power_state(dev, PCI_D0);
> >  
> > +	if (prev_state == PCI_D3cold)
> > +		pci_dev_wait(dev, "D3cold->D0", PCIE_RESET_READY_POLL_MS);
> 
> Is there any reason in particular why you chose to call pci_dev_wait()?
> It seems to me like that's a little broader than pci_bus_wait_crs(). The
> latter is static in drivers/pci/probe.c so we'd need to change that in
> order to use it from drivers/pci/pci.c, but it sounds like the more
> explicit thing to do.

Broader in what sense?  They work essentially identically except that
pci_bus_wait_crs() doesn't need a pci_dev * (because it's used during
enumeration when we don't have a pci_dev yet) and it does dword reads
instead of word reads.

It is a shame that the logic is duplicated, but we don't have to worry
about that here.

I think I would stick with pci_dev_wait() in this case since we do
have a pci_dev * and it's a little simpler, unless I'm missing the
advantage of pci_bus_wait_crs().

Bjorn

  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-14 18:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-05 18:21 [PATCH] PCI: Add CRS timeout for pci_device_is_present() Vidya Sagar
2019-10-14  8:20 ` Thierry Reding
2019-10-14 20:21   ` Sinan Kaya
2019-10-15  9:30     ` Thierry Reding
2019-10-15 11:10       ` Sinan Kaya
2019-10-15 12:14         ` Vidya Sagar
     [not found]           ` <afa16546-e63d-6eba-8be0-8e52339cd100@nvidia.com>
2019-10-25 11:58             ` Vidya Sagar
2019-10-26 13:59               ` Sinan Kaya
2019-11-04 11:43                 ` Vidya Sagar
2019-11-04 16:52                   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-11-04 17:39           ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-11-05 10:55             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-11-06 16:41               ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-11-11  6:01                 ` Vidya Sagar
2019-11-11 22:32                   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-11-12 12:59                     ` Thierry Reding
2019-11-12 14:21                       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-11-12 17:59                         ` Vidya Sagar
2019-11-12 18:58                           ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-11-13  5:39                             ` Vidya Sagar
2019-11-13 11:20                             ` Thierry Reding
2019-11-14 18:36                               ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2019-11-15 10:04                                 ` Vidya Sagar
2019-11-15 22:36                                   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-11-18 15:18                                     ` Vidya Sagar
2019-11-12 17:59                     ` Vidya Sagar
2019-10-15 12:03       ` Vidya Sagar
2019-10-15 11:34     ` Vidya Sagar
2019-10-14 10:45 ` Andrew Murray

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=20191114183612.GA215974@google.com \
    --to=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=andrew.murray@arm.com \
    --cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
    --cc=kthota@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=lukas@wunner.de \
    --cc=mmaddireddy@nvidia.com \
    --cc=okaya@kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=sagar.tv@gmail.com \
    --cc=treding@nvidia.com \
    --cc=vidyas@nvidia.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).