Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] PCI/portdrv: add mechanism to turn on subdev regulators

[Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@broadcom.com>]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:45 AM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 17 November 2021 10:14:19 Jim Quinlan wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 3:53 PM Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday 16 November 2021 11:41:22 Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > +Pali
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:44 PM Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@broadcom.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 5:57 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 4:15 PM Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adds a mechanism inside the root port device to identify standard PCIe
> > > > > > > regulators in the DT, allocate them, and turn them on before the rest of
> > > > > > > the bus is scanned during pci_host_probe().  A root complex driver can
> > > > > > > leverage this mechanism by setting the pci_ops methods add_bus and
> > > > > > > remove_bus to pci_subdev_regulators_{add,remove}_bus.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The allocated structure that contains the regulators is stored in
> > > > > > > dev.driver_data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The unabridge    /* PCIe endpoint */d reason for doing this is as follows.  We would like the
> > > > > > > Broadcom STB PCIe root complex driver (and others) to be able to turn
> > > > > > > off/on regulators[1] that provide power to endpoint[2] devices.  Typically,
> > > > > > > the drivers of these endpoint devices are stock Linux drivers that are not
> > > > > > > aware that these regulator(s) exist and must be turned on for the driver to
> > > > > > > be probed.  The simple solution of course is to turn these regulators on at
> > > > > > > boot and keep them on.  However, this solution does not satisfy at least
> > > > > > > three of our usage modes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. For example, one customer uses multiple PCIe controllers, but wants the
> > > > > > > ability to, by script invoking and unbind, turn any or all of them by and
> > > > > > > their subdevices off to save power, e.g. when in battery mode.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Another example is when a watchdog script discovers that an endpoint
> > > > > > > device is in an unresponsive state and would like to unbind, power toggle,
> > > > > > > and re-bind just the PCIe endpoint and controller.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Of course we also want power turned off during suspend mode.  However,
> > > > > > > some endpoint devices may be able to "wake" during suspend and we need to
> > > > > > > recognise this case and veto the nominal act of turning off its regulator.
> > > > > > > Such is the case with Wake-on-LAN and Wake-on-WLAN support where PCIe
> > > > > > > end-point device needs to be kept powered on in order to receive network
> > > > > > > packets and wake-up the system.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In all of these cases it is advantageous for the PCIe controller to govern
> > > > > > > the turning off/on the regulators needed by the endpoint device.  The first
> > > > > > > two cases can be done by simply unbinding and binding the PCIe controller,
> > > > > > > if the controller has control of these regulators.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] These regulators typically govern the actual power supply to the
> > > > > > >     endpoint chip.  Sometimes they may be a the official PCIe socket
> > > > > > >     power -- such as 3.3v or aux-3.3v.  Sometimes they are truly
> > > > > > >     the regulator(s) that supply power to the EP chip.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [2] The 99% configuration of our boards is a single endpoint device
> > > > > > >     attached to the PCIe controller.  I use the term endpoint but it could
> > > > > > >     possible mean a switch as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  drivers/pci/bus.c              | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > >  drivers/pci/pci.h              |  8 ++++
> > > > > > >  drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_pci.c | 32 +++++++++++++++
> > > > > > >  3 files changed, 112 insertions(+)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/bus.c b/drivers/pci/bus.c
> > > > > > > index 3cef835b375f..c39fdf36b0ad 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/pci/bus.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/bus.c
> > > > > > > @@ -419,3 +419,75 @@ void pci_bus_put(struct pci_bus *bus)
> > > > > > >         if (bus)
> > > > > > >                 put_device(&bus->dev);
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +static void *alloc_subdev_regulators(struct device *dev)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +       static const char * const supplies[] = {
> > > > > > > +               "vpcie3v3",
> > > > > > > +               "vpcie3v3aux",
> > > > > > > +               "vpcie12v",
> > > > > > > +       };
> > > > > > > +       const size_t size = sizeof(struct subdev_regulators)
> > > > > > > +               + sizeof(struct regulator_bulk_data) * ARRAY_SIZE(supplies);
> > > > > > > +       struct subdev_regulators *sr;
> > > > > > > +       int i;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +       sr = devm_kzalloc(dev, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +       if (sr) {
> > > > > > > +               sr->num_supplies = ARRAY_SIZE(supplies);
> > > > > > > +               for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(supplies); i++)
> > > > > > > +                       sr->supplies[i].supply = supplies[i];
> > > > > > > +       }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +       return sr;
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +int pci_subdev_regulators_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +       struct device *dev = &bus->dev;
> > > > > > > +       struct subdev_regulators *sr;
> > > > > > > +       int ret;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +       if (!pcie_is_port_dev(bus->self))
> > > > > > > +               return 0;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +       if (WARN_ON(bus->dev.driver_data))
> > > > > > > +               dev_err(dev, "multiple clients using dev.driver_data\n");
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +       sr = alloc_subdev_regulators(&bus->dev);
> > > > > > > +       if (!sr)
> > > > > > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +       bus->dev.driver_data = sr;
> > > > > > > +       ret = regulator_bulk_get(dev, sr->num_supplies, sr->supplies);
> > > > > > > +       if (ret)
> > > > > > > +               return ret;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +       ret = regulator_bulk_enable(sr->num_supplies, sr->supplies);
> > > > > > > +       if (ret) {
> > > > > > > +               dev_err(dev, "failed to enable regulators for downstream device\n");
> > > > > > > +               return ret;
> > > > > > > +       }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +       return 0;
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_subdev_regulators_add_bus);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can't these just go in the portdrv probe and remove functions now?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rob
> > > > >
> > > > > Not really.  The idea is that  only when a host controller driver does this
> > > > >
> > > > > static struct pci_ops my_pcie_ops = {
> > > > >     .add_bus = pci_subdev_regulators_add_bus , /* see  note below */
> > > > >     .remove_bus = pci_subdev_regulators_remove_bus,
> > > > >     ...
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > does it explicitly want this feature.  Without doing this, every PCI
> > > > > port in the world will execute a devm_kzalloc() and
> > > > > devm_regulator_bulk_get() to (likely) grab nothing, and then there
> > > > > will be three superfluous lines in the boot log:
> > > >
> > > > You can opt-in based on there being a DT node.
> > > >
> > > > > pci_bus 0001:01: 0001:01 supply vpcie12v not found, using dummy regulator
> > > > > pci_bus 0001:01: 0001:01 supply vpcie3v3 not found, using dummy regulator
> > > > > pci_bus 0001:01: 0001:01 supply vpcie3v3aux not found, using dummy regulator
> > > >
> > > > This would be annoying, but not really a reason for how to design this.
> > > >
> > > > > Secondly, our  HW needs to know when the  alloc/get/enable of
> > > > > regulators is done so that the PCIe link can then be attempted.   This
> > > > > is pretty much the cornerstone of this patchset.   To do this the brcm
> > > > > RC driver's call to pci_subdev_regulators_add_bus() is wrapped by
> > > > > brcm_pcie_add_bus() so that we can do this:
> > > > >
> > > > > static struct pci_ops my_pcie_ops = {
> > > > >     .add_bus = brcm_pcie_add_bus ,   /* calls pci_subdev_regulators_add_bus() */
> > > > >     .remove_bus = pci_subdev_regulators_remove_bus,
> > > >
> > > > Do add_bus/remove_bus get called during resume/suspend? If not, how do
> > > > you handle the link during resume?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe there needs to be explicit hooks for link handling. Pali has
> > > > been looking into this some.
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > >
> > > Yes, I was looking at it... main power (12V/3.3V) and AUX power (3.3V)
> > > needs to be supplied at the "correct" time during establishing link
> > > procedure. I wrote it in my RFC email:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20211022183808.jdeo7vntnagqkg7g@pali/
> > Hello Pali,
> >
> > I really like your proposal although I would like to get my patchset
> > first :-) :-)
> >
> > Suppose you came up with a patchset for your ideas-- would that include
> > changes to existing RC drivers to use the proposed framework?  If so,
> > I am wary that it would
> > break at least a few of them.  Or would you just present the framework
> > and allow the
> > RC drivers' authors to opt-in, one by one?
>
> My idea is to add new "framework" to allow drivers implement new
> callbacks for this "framework". There would be no change in drivers
> which do not provide these callbacks to ensure that nothing is going to
> be broken. I'm planning to implement these callbacks only for RC drivers
> for which I have hardware and can properly test to not introduce any
> regression. For other existing RC drivers it is up to other authors +
> testers. But to decrease future maintenance cost of all RC drivers I
> expect that new drivers would not implement any ad-hoc solution in their
> "probe" function and instead implement these new callbacks. That is my
> idea.
>
> > At any rate, if you want someone to test some of your ideas I can work
> > with you.
>
> Perfect! If you have any concerns or you see any issues, please reply
> that my RFC email. So I can collect feedback.
>
> Also I sent draft for updating DTS schema for PCIe devices:
> https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/pull/64

Hi Pali,
I don't see any mention or placement of the regulator nodes for power;
do you agree with where
I proposed we place them, ie in the first bridge under the root-complex,  e.g.

            pcie0: pcie@7d500000 {                                /*
root complex */
                    compatible = "brcm,bcm2711-pcie";
                    reg = <0x0 0x7d500000 0x9310>;

                    /* PCIe bridge */
                    pci@0,0 {
                            #address-cells = <3>;
                            #size-cells = <2>;
                            reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
                            compatible = "pciclass,0604";
                            device_type = "pci";
                            vpcie3v3-supply = <&vreg7>;     /*
<------------- HERE  */
                            ranges;

                            pci-ep@0,0 {        /* PCIe endpoint */
                                    assigned-addresses =
                                        <0x82010000 0x0 0xf8000000 0x6
0x00000000 0x0 0x2000>;
                                    reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
                                    compatible = "pci14e4,1688";
                                    #address-cells = <3>;
                                    #size-cells = <2>;

                                    ranges;
                            };
                    };
            };


Regards,
Jim

>
> > Regards,
> > Jim Quinlan
> > Broadcom STB
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if regulator API is the most suitable for this task in PCI
> > > core code as there are planty ways how it can be controllers. My idea
> > > presented in that email was that driver provides power callback and core
> > > pci code would use it.
> > >
> > > Because power needs to be enabled at the "correct" time during link up,
> > > I think that add/remove bus callbacks are unsuitable for this task. This
> > > would just cause adding another msleep() calls on different places to
> > > make correct timing of link up...
> > >
> > > I think it is needed to implement generic function for establishing link
> > > in pci core code with all required steps.