From: "Z.Q. Hou" <zhiqiang.hou@nxp.com>
To: "Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>
Cc: "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
"robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
"bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"shawnguo@kernel.org" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
"gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com" <gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com>,
"M.H. Lian" <minghuan.lian@nxp.com>,
Mingkai Hu <mingkai.hu@nxp.com>, Roy Zang <roy.zang@nxp.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCHv5 6/6] PCI: layerscape: Add power management support
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:29:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <HE1PR04MB2969549F5A27A5DC1CAC4754849B9@HE1PR04MB2969.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YY23MeAa0U/r4lbO@rocinante>
Hi Krzysztof,
Thanks a lot for your comments!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Wilczyński [mailto:kw@linux.com]
> Sent: 2021年11月12日 8:37
> To: Z.Q. Hou <zhiqiang.hou@nxp.com>
> Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
> lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com; robh+dt@kernel.org; bhelgaas@google.com;
> shawnguo@kernel.org; Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>;
> gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com; M.H. Lian <minghuan.lian@nxp.com>;
> Mingkai Hu <mingkai.hu@nxp.com>; Roy Zang <roy.zang@nxp.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 6/6] PCI: layerscape: Add power management support
>
> Hi,
>
> [...]
> > +/* PF Message Command Register */
> > +#define LS_PCIE_PF_MCR 0x2c
> > +#define PF_MCR_PTOMR BIT(0)
> > +#define PF_MCR_EXL2S BIT(1)
> > +
> > +/* LS1021A PEXn PM Write Control Register */
> > +#define SCFG_PEXPMWRCR(idx) (0x5c + (idx) * 0x64)
> > +#define PMXMTTURNOFF BIT(31)
> > +#define SCFG_PEXSFTRSTCR 0x190
> > +#define PEXSR(idx) BIT(idx)
> > +
> > +/* LS1043A PEX PME control register */
> > +#define SCFG_PEXPMECR 0x144
> > +#define PEXPME(idx) BIT(31 - (idx) * 4)
> > +
> > +/* LS1043A PEX LUT debug register */
> > +#define LS_PCIE_LDBG 0x7fc
> > +#define LDBG_SR BIT(30)
> > +#define LDBG_WE BIT(31)
>
> A small nitpick: a consistent capitalisation of "control" and "debug", and
> "register" in the comments above.
Good suggestion, will make them consistent next version.
>
> [...]
> > +static void ls_pcie_lut_writel(struct ls_pcie *pcie, u32 off, u32
> > +val) {
> > + if (pcie->big_endian)
> > + return iowrite32be(val, pcie->lut_base + off);
> > +
> > + return iowrite32(val, pcie->lut_base + off);
> > +
> > +}
>
> Surplus newline above after the return statement.
>
> [...]
> > +static void ls_pcie_pf_writel(struct ls_pcie *pcie, u32 off, u32 val)
> > +{
> > + if (pcie->big_endian)
> > + return iowrite32be(val, pcie->pf_base + off);
> > +
> > + return iowrite32(val, pcie->pf_base + off);
> > +
> > +}
>
> Surplus newline above after the return statement.
>
Will remove these lines next version.
> [...]
> > +static void ls_pcie_send_turnoff_msg(struct ls_pcie *pcie) {
> > + u32 val;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + val = ls_pcie_pf_readl(pcie, LS_PCIE_PF_MCR);
> > + val |= PF_MCR_PTOMR;
> > + ls_pcie_pf_writel(pcie, LS_PCIE_PF_MCR, val);
> > +
> > + ret = readx_poll_timeout(ls_pcie_pf_readl_addr, LS_PCIE_PF_MCR,
> > + val, !(val & PF_MCR_PTOMR), 100, 10000);
> > + if (ret)
> > + dev_info(pcie->pci->dev, "poll turn off message timeout\n"); }
>
> Would this dev_info() be more of a warning or an error? A timeout is
> potentially a problem, correct?
>
An error message is better here, will change next version.
> [...]
> > +static void ls1021a_pcie_send_turnoff_msg(struct ls_pcie *pcie) {
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + if (!pcie->scfg) {
> > + dev_dbg(pcie->pci->dev, "SYSCFG is NULL\n");
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Send Turn_off message */
> > + regmap_read(pcie->scfg, SCFG_PEXPMWRCR(pcie->index), &val);
> > + val |= PMXMTTURNOFF;
> > + regmap_write(pcie->scfg, SCFG_PEXPMWRCR(pcie->index), val);
> > +
> > + mdelay(10);
>
> We often, customary, document why a particular mdelay() is needed. You also
> did this in other part of the code, so perhaps adding a note here (and
> everywhere else) would be nice for keeping the consistency.
>
Will add next version.
> [...]
> > +static void ls_pcie_exit_from_l2(struct ls_pcie *pcie) {
> > + u32 val;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + val = ls_pcie_pf_readl(pcie, LS_PCIE_PF_MCR);
> > + val |= PF_MCR_EXL2S;
> > + ls_pcie_pf_writel(pcie, LS_PCIE_PF_MCR, val);
> > +
> > + ret = readx_poll_timeout(ls_pcie_pf_readl_addr, LS_PCIE_PF_MCR,
> > + val, !(val & PF_MCR_EXL2S), 100, 10000);
> > + if (ret)
> > + dev_info(pcie->pci->dev, "poll exit L2 state timeout\n"); }
>
> Similarly to the question above: is this timeout something more severe and
> would warrant a warning or an error here instead?
>
Agree.
> [...]
> > +static void ls1021a_pcie_exit_from_l2(struct ls_pcie *pcie) {
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + regmap_read(pcie->scfg, SCFG_PEXSFTRSTCR, &val);
> > + val |= PEXSR(pcie->index);
> > + regmap_write(pcie->scfg, SCFG_PEXSFTRSTCR, val);
> > +
> > + regmap_read(pcie->scfg, SCFG_PEXSFTRSTCR, &val);
> > + val &= ~PEXSR(pcie->index);
> > + regmap_write(pcie->scfg, SCFG_PEXSFTRSTCR, val);
> > +
> > + mdelay(1);
>
> Aside of documenting this mdelay() here, if possible, would 1 be enough?
> Everywhere else you seem to use 10 consistently.
>
It's enough and didn't encounter a fail in thousands regressions.
> > +
> > + ls_pcie_retrain_link(pcie);
> > +}
> > +static void ls1043a_pcie_exit_from_l2(struct ls_pcie *pcie)
>
> Missing newline above to separate code blocks.
>
Will add next version.
> > +{
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + val = ls_pcie_lut_readl(pcie, LS_PCIE_LDBG);
> > + val |= LDBG_WE;
> > + ls_pcie_lut_writel(pcie, LS_PCIE_LDBG, val);
> > +
> > + val = ls_pcie_lut_readl(pcie, LS_PCIE_LDBG);
> > + val |= LDBG_SR;
> > + ls_pcie_lut_writel(pcie, LS_PCIE_LDBG, val);
> > +
> > + val = ls_pcie_lut_readl(pcie, LS_PCIE_LDBG);
> > + val &= ~LDBG_SR;
> > + ls_pcie_lut_writel(pcie, LS_PCIE_LDBG, val);
> > +
> > + val = ls_pcie_lut_readl(pcie, LS_PCIE_LDBG);
> > + val &= ~LDBG_WE;
> > + ls_pcie_lut_writel(pcie, LS_PCIE_LDBG, val);
> > +
> > + mdelay(1);
>
> See comment above.
>
> [...]
> > +static int ls1021a_pcie_pm_init(struct ls_pcie *pcie) {
> > + struct device *dev = pcie->pci->dev;
> > + u32 index[2];
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + pcie->scfg = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(dev->of_node,
> > + "fsl,pcie-scfg");
> > + if (IS_ERR(pcie->scfg)) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(pcie->scfg);
> > + dev_err(dev, "No syscfg phandle specified\n");
> > + pcie->scfg = NULL;
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = of_property_read_u32_array(dev->of_node, "fsl,pcie-scfg",
> > + index, 2);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pcie->scfg = NULL;
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + pcie->index = index[1];
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Just an idea: what about using goto for error handling?
>
> (...)
> if (IS_ERR(pcie->scfg)) {
> ret = PTR_ERR(pcie->scfg);
> dev_err(dev, "No syscfg phandle specified\n");
> goto error;
> }
>
> ret = of_property_read_u32_array(dev->of_node, "fsl,pcie-scfg",
> index, 2);
> if (ret)
> goto error;
>
> pcie->index = index[1];
>
> return 0;
>
> error:
> pcie->scfg = NULL;
> return ret;
> }
>
> Not necessarily better or worse compared with your version, so it would be
> more of a matter of personal preference here.
Thanks for the good suggestion!
>
> > +static int ls_pcie_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev) {
> > + struct ls_pcie *pcie = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > + struct dw_pcie *pci = pcie->pci;
> > + u32 val;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (!ls_pcie_pm_check(pcie))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + pcie->drvdata->pm_ops->send_turn_off_message(pcie);
> > +
> > + /* 10ms timeout to check L2 ready */
> > + ret = readl_poll_timeout(pci->dbi_base + PCIE_PORT_DEBUG0,
> > + val, LS_PCIE_IS_L2(val), 100, 10000);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "PCIe link enter L2 timeout! ltssm = 0x%x\n", val);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
>
> The error message above could be improve to be more like an error stating that
> something failed and such, as currently it looks like a debug message, unless it
> was intended as such.
Exactly, will improve.
>
> [...]
> > +static int ls_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev) {
> > + struct ls_pcie *pcie = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > + struct dw_pcie *pci = pcie->pci;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (!ls_pcie_pm_check(pcie))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + ls_pcie_set_dstate(pcie, 0x0);
> > +
> > + pcie->drvdata->pm_ops->exit_from_l2(pcie);
> > +
> > + dw_pcie_setup_rc(&pci->pp);
> > +
> > + /* delay 10 ms to access EP */
> > + mdelay(10);
> > +
> > + ret = ls_pcie_host_init(&pci->pp);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "ls_pcie_host_init failed! ret = 0x%x\n", ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
>
> A small nitpick: error messages that are directed at end users should have a little
> more context than just the function name.
Will remove the return value check, currently this func always succeed.
Thanks,
Zhiqiang
>
> Krzysztof
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-18 12:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-07 3:09 [PATCHv5 0/6] PCI: layerscape: Add power management support Zhiqiang Hou
2021-04-07 3:09 ` [PATCHv5 1/6] PCI: layerscape: Change to use the DWC common link-up check function Zhiqiang Hou
2021-04-07 3:09 ` [PATCHv5 2/6] dt-bindings: pci: layerscape-pci: Add a optional property big-endian Zhiqiang Hou
2021-04-07 3:09 ` [PATCHv5 3/6] arm64: dts: layerscape: Add big-endian property for PCIe nodes Zhiqiang Hou
2021-04-07 3:09 ` [PATCHv5 4/6] dt-bindings: pci: layerscape-pci: Update the description of SCFG property Zhiqiang Hou
2021-04-07 3:09 ` [PATCHv5 5/6] arm64: dts: ls1043a: Add SCFG phandle for PCIe nodes Zhiqiang Hou
2021-04-07 3:09 ` [PATCHv5 6/6] PCI: layerscape: Add power management support Zhiqiang Hou
2021-04-09 0:08 ` Rob Herring
2021-11-12 0:37 ` Krzysztof Wilczyński
2021-11-18 12:29 ` Z.Q. Hou [this message]
2021-11-11 21:21 ` [PATCHv5 0/6] " Li Yang
2021-11-11 21:44 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-11-16 23:52 ` Leo Li
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=HE1PR04MB2969549F5A27A5DC1CAC4754849B9@HE1PR04MB2969.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com \
--to=zhiqiang.hou@nxp.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com \
--cc=kw@linux.com \
--cc=leoyang.li@nxp.com \
--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=minghuan.lian@nxp.com \
--cc=mingkai.hu@nxp.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=roy.zang@nxp.com \
--cc=shawnguo@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 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).