All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	"Nicolas Saenz Julienne" <nsaenz@kernel.org>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	"Cyril Brulebois" <kibi@debian.org>,
	"Phil Elwell" <phil@raspberrypi.com>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
	james.quinlan@broadcom.com,
	"Florian Fainelli" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM7XXX ARM ARCHITECTURE"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
	<linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: PCI: brcmstb: brcm,{enable-l1ss,completion-timeout-us} props
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:10:51 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230430191051.GA515900@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230428223500.23337-2-jim2101024@gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 06:34:55PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> This commit introduces two new properties:

Doing two things makes this a candidate for splitting into two
patches, as you've already done for the driver support.  They seem
incidentally related but not indivisible.

> brcm,enable-l1ss (bool):
> 
>   The Broadcom STB/CM PCIe HW -- a core that is also used by RPi SOCs --
>   requires the driver probe() to deliberately place the HW one of three
>   CLKREQ# modes:
> 
>   (a) CLKREQ# driven by the RC unconditionally
>   (b) CLKREQ# driven by the EP for ASPM L0s, L1
>   (c) Bidirectional CLKREQ#, as used for L1 Substates (L1SS).
> 
>   The HW+driver can tell the difference between downstream devices that
>   need (a) and (b), but does not know when to configure (c).  All devices
>   should work fine when the driver chooses (a) or (b), but (c) may be
>   desired to realize the extra power savings that L1SS offers.  So we
>   introduce the boolean "brcm,enable-l1ss" property to inform the driver
>   that (c) is desired.  Setting this property only makes sense when the
>   downstream device is L1SS-capable and the OS is configured to activate
>   this mode (e.g. policy==superpowersave).

Is this related to the existing generic "supports-clkreq" property?  I
guess not, because supports-clkreq looks like a description of CLKREQ
signal routing, while brcm,enable-l1ss looks like a description of
what kind of downstream device is present?

What bad things would happen if the driver always configured (c)?

Other platforms don't require this, and having to edit the DT based on
what PCIe device is plugged in seems wrong.  If brcmstb does need it,
that suggests a hardware defect.  If we need this to work around a
defect, that's OK, but we should acknowledge the defect so we can stop
using this for future hardware that doesn't need it.

Maybe the name should be more specific to CLKREQ#, since this doesn't
actually *enable* L1SS; apparently it's just one of the pieces needed
to enable L1SS?

>   This property is already present in the Raspian version of Linux, but the
>   upstream driver implementaion that follows adds more details and discerns
>   between (a) and (b).

s/implementaion/implementation/

> brcm,completion-timeout-us (u32):
> 
>   Our HW will cause a CPU abort on any PCI transaction completion abort
>   error.  It makes sense then to increase the timeout value for this type
>   of error in hopes that the response is merely delayed.  Further,
>   L1SS-capable devices may have a long L1SS exit time and may require a
>   custom timeout value: we've been asked by our customers to make this
>   configurable for just this reason.

I asked before whether this should be made generic and not
brcm-specific, since completion timeouts are generic PCIe things.  I
didn't see any discussion, but Rob reviewed this so I guess it's OK
as-is.

Is there something unique about brcm that requires this?  I think it's
common for PCIe Completion Timeouts to cause CPU aborts.

Surely other drivers need to configure the completion timeout, but
pcie-rcar-host.c and pcie-rcar-ep.c are the only ones I could find.
Maybe the brcmstb power-up values are just too small?  Does the
correct value need to be in DT, or could it just be built into the
driver?

This sounds like something dependent on the downstream device
connected, which again sounds hard for users to deal with.  How would
they know what to use here?

> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml   | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> index 7e15aae7d69e..239cc95545bd 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> @@ -64,6 +64,22 @@ properties:
>  
>    aspm-no-l0s: true
>  
> +  brcm,enable-l1ss:
> +    description: Indicates that PCIe L1SS power savings
> +      are desired, the downstream device is L1SS-capable, and the
> +      OS has been configured to enable this mode.  For boards
> +      using a mini-card connector, this mode may not meet the
> +      TCRLon maximum time of 400ns, as specified in 3.2.5.2.5
> +      of the PCI Express Mini CEM 2.0 specification.
> +    type: boolean
> +
> +  brcm,completion-timeout-us:
> +    description: Number of microseconds before PCI transaction
> +      completion timeout abort is signalled.
> +    minimum: 16
> +    default: 1000000
> +    maximum: 19884107
> +
>    brcm,scb-sizes:
>      description: u64 giving the 64bit PCIe memory
>        viewport size of a memory controller.  There may be up to
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	"Nicolas Saenz Julienne" <nsaenz@kernel.org>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	"Cyril Brulebois" <kibi@debian.org>,
	"Phil Elwell" <phil@raspberrypi.com>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
	james.quinlan@broadcom.com,
	"Florian Fainelli" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM7XXX ARM ARCHITECTURE"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
	<linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: PCI: brcmstb: brcm,{enable-l1ss,completion-timeout-us} props
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:10:51 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230430191051.GA515900@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230428223500.23337-2-jim2101024@gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 06:34:55PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> This commit introduces two new properties:

Doing two things makes this a candidate for splitting into two
patches, as you've already done for the driver support.  They seem
incidentally related but not indivisible.

> brcm,enable-l1ss (bool):
> 
>   The Broadcom STB/CM PCIe HW -- a core that is also used by RPi SOCs --
>   requires the driver probe() to deliberately place the HW one of three
>   CLKREQ# modes:
> 
>   (a) CLKREQ# driven by the RC unconditionally
>   (b) CLKREQ# driven by the EP for ASPM L0s, L1
>   (c) Bidirectional CLKREQ#, as used for L1 Substates (L1SS).
> 
>   The HW+driver can tell the difference between downstream devices that
>   need (a) and (b), but does not know when to configure (c).  All devices
>   should work fine when the driver chooses (a) or (b), but (c) may be
>   desired to realize the extra power savings that L1SS offers.  So we
>   introduce the boolean "brcm,enable-l1ss" property to inform the driver
>   that (c) is desired.  Setting this property only makes sense when the
>   downstream device is L1SS-capable and the OS is configured to activate
>   this mode (e.g. policy==superpowersave).

Is this related to the existing generic "supports-clkreq" property?  I
guess not, because supports-clkreq looks like a description of CLKREQ
signal routing, while brcm,enable-l1ss looks like a description of
what kind of downstream device is present?

What bad things would happen if the driver always configured (c)?

Other platforms don't require this, and having to edit the DT based on
what PCIe device is plugged in seems wrong.  If brcmstb does need it,
that suggests a hardware defect.  If we need this to work around a
defect, that's OK, but we should acknowledge the defect so we can stop
using this for future hardware that doesn't need it.

Maybe the name should be more specific to CLKREQ#, since this doesn't
actually *enable* L1SS; apparently it's just one of the pieces needed
to enable L1SS?

>   This property is already present in the Raspian version of Linux, but the
>   upstream driver implementaion that follows adds more details and discerns
>   between (a) and (b).

s/implementaion/implementation/

> brcm,completion-timeout-us (u32):
> 
>   Our HW will cause a CPU abort on any PCI transaction completion abort
>   error.  It makes sense then to increase the timeout value for this type
>   of error in hopes that the response is merely delayed.  Further,
>   L1SS-capable devices may have a long L1SS exit time and may require a
>   custom timeout value: we've been asked by our customers to make this
>   configurable for just this reason.

I asked before whether this should be made generic and not
brcm-specific, since completion timeouts are generic PCIe things.  I
didn't see any discussion, but Rob reviewed this so I guess it's OK
as-is.

Is there something unique about brcm that requires this?  I think it's
common for PCIe Completion Timeouts to cause CPU aborts.

Surely other drivers need to configure the completion timeout, but
pcie-rcar-host.c and pcie-rcar-ep.c are the only ones I could find.
Maybe the brcmstb power-up values are just too small?  Does the
correct value need to be in DT, or could it just be built into the
driver?

This sounds like something dependent on the downstream device
connected, which again sounds hard for users to deal with.  How would
they know what to use here?

> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml   | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> index 7e15aae7d69e..239cc95545bd 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> @@ -64,6 +64,22 @@ properties:
>  
>    aspm-no-l0s: true
>  
> +  brcm,enable-l1ss:
> +    description: Indicates that PCIe L1SS power savings
> +      are desired, the downstream device is L1SS-capable, and the
> +      OS has been configured to enable this mode.  For boards
> +      using a mini-card connector, this mode may not meet the
> +      TCRLon maximum time of 400ns, as specified in 3.2.5.2.5
> +      of the PCI Express Mini CEM 2.0 specification.
> +    type: boolean
> +
> +  brcm,completion-timeout-us:
> +    description: Number of microseconds before PCI transaction
> +      completion timeout abort is signalled.
> +    minimum: 16
> +    default: 1000000
> +    maximum: 19884107
> +
>    brcm,scb-sizes:
>      description: u64 giving the 64bit PCIe memory
>        viewport size of a memory controller.  There may be up to
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2023-04-30 19:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-28 22:34 [PATCH v4 0/5] PCI: brcmstb: Configure appropriate HW CLKREQ# mode Jim Quinlan
2023-04-28 22:34 ` Jim Quinlan
2023-04-28 22:34 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: PCI: brcmstb: brcm,{enable-l1ss,completion-timeout-us} props Jim Quinlan
2023-04-28 22:34   ` Jim Quinlan
2023-04-30 19:10   ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2023-04-30 19:10     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-03 14:38     ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-03 14:38       ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-03 18:07       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-03 18:07         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-03 21:38         ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-03 21:38           ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-03 22:18           ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-03 22:18             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-05 12:39             ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-05 12:39               ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-05 13:34               ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-05 13:34                 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-05 14:40                 ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-05 14:40                   ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-05 14:54                   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-05 14:54                     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-04-28 22:34 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] PCI: brcmstb: Configure HW CLKREQ# mode appropriate for downstream device Jim Quinlan
2023-04-28 22:34   ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-03  6:09   ` Stefan Wahren
2023-05-03  6:09     ` Stefan Wahren
2023-04-28 22:34 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] PCI: brcmstb: Set PCIe transaction completion timeout Jim Quinlan
2023-04-28 22:34   ` Jim Quinlan
2023-04-30 19:13   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-04-30 19:13     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-04-30 21:24     ` Jim Quinlan
2023-04-30 21:24       ` Jim Quinlan
2023-04-30 22:38       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-04-30 22:38         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-01 20:55       ` Lukas Wunner
2023-05-03 14:06         ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-03 14:06           ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-03  6:06   ` Stefan Wahren
2023-05-03  6:06     ` Stefan Wahren
2023-04-28 22:34 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] PCI: brcmstb: Don't assume 2711 bootloader leaves PERST# asserted Jim Quinlan
2023-04-28 22:34   ` Jim Quinlan
2023-04-28 22:34 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] PCI: brcmstb: Remove stale comment Jim Quinlan
2023-04-28 22:34   ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-02 23:15 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] PCI: brcmstb: Configure appropriate HW CLKREQ# mode Cyril Brulebois
2023-05-02 23:15   ` Cyril Brulebois
2023-05-03 18:10   ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-03 18:10     ` Jim Quinlan
2023-05-03 19:10     ` Cyril Brulebois
2023-05-03 19:10       ` Cyril Brulebois

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=20230430191051.GA515900@bhelgaas \
    --to=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
    --cc=james.quinlan@broadcom.com \
    --cc=jim2101024@gmail.com \
    --cc=kibi@debian.org \
    --cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
    --cc=kw@linux.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
    --cc=nsaenz@kernel.org \
    --cc=phil@raspberrypi.com \
    --cc=robh@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.