Received: by 2002:a25:86ce:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y14csp1088524ybm; Tue, 21 May 2019 08:27:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzH4IuvgIarJWjsAjaq8FjN3HAeQtuZ0oQuwJ/cbuePWVyMM+lebE6XxSSVApiwn1ifN12c X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6ac6:: with SMTP id i6mr83533738plt.336.1558452465820; Tue, 21 May 2019 08:27:45 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1558452465; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=aIBAxrexcRgzZLUAdqHVSibR9O4srFCF0iykEWMiI+DIzNCHX6vAsvw7DJCJoGDVi5 wFEL48uLOSBEQeJUKs7113Y1C9Im8ZRSilAajFoWXPfbsskdRqOVWsNn78FTmgTbR6dP aD6ilA0DPoqBYhWDxT6CKmb0+FRPbhsMseuPgx4cCjSDIO/0yF+I0qdp54/D9yegga7g 7lpAWhEql95cjupIJsdaoR3qkGmtsk7v0/L+09HDhJMWzzLn1ijK72iYEGg3ycDZKPW4 OjjEyV4o2tE3oG7r67bIi/peZfRmpSct8cd66ARHWh47dFQYcX0ArUwtF8qXoyOo2azg UzkA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=T3VZdLRf1nsOZ6hRBSR6zKZNDvdU/IRRuIKqbvk1ePM=; b=CqPDT5WNvRzFhD2kePmEGNQkY6nVLer8UHd63+l6eUc6nqzYmqxQJL4dMALyvpWWMn VQQW7PXM4t0L88PA3CdFoFPUIW2A0sjqXNAq+zaTx8LqBbEwFrHB4i5U8U1NJHBby/HQ x3s9vVyBQ0lteiU8fsJTb0H9ntydE/WUcjUeC+EON342i1YhSm/3hPE14bgQaPohDNlW Krvucn0vLfwVQlpRZNo/R1G8qVqYMDrC2Op8prcjXj8snJC5e0AeG+hEeUqrectNjKKV 9nwB4kD7BA/7p2RwBppmXhh3zdWdVW4zS77tw7Uozsbg+P/ghy4hGMnG7JWA4DqHJ+Gk ffjA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m189si23658676pfm.17.2019.05.21.08.27.30; Tue, 21 May 2019 08:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728666AbfEUP0A (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 21 May 2019 11:26:00 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:56913 "EHLO relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728103AbfEUPZ7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 11:25:59 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 88.190.179.123 Received: from localhost (unknown [88.190.179.123]) (Authenticated sender: repk@triplefau.lt) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8049960013; Tue, 21 May 2019 15:25:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 17:34:11 +0200 From: Remi Pommarel To: Lorenzo Pieralisi Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Bjorn Helgaas , Ellie Reeves , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: aardvark: Use LTSSM state to build link training flag Message-ID: <20190521153410.GB2754@voidbox.localdomain> References: <20190316161243.29517-1-repk@triplefau.lt> <20190425110830.GC10833@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20190425142353.GO2754@voidbox.localdomain> <20190425150640.GA20770@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20190429153234.GS2754@voidbox.localdomain> <20190430113427.GA18742@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190430113427.GA18742@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Lorenzo, On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:34:27PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 05:32:35PM +0200, Remi Pommarel wrote: > > Hi Lorenzo, > > > > Sorry for duplicates I forgot to include everyone. > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 04:06:40PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 04:23:53PM +0200, Remi Pommarel wrote: > > > > Hi Lorenzo, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:08:30PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 05:12:43PM +0100, Remi Pommarel wrote: > > > > > > The PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT flag in the emulated root device's PCI_EXP_LNKSTA > > > > > > config register does not reflect the actual link training state and is > > > > > > always cleared. The Link Training and Status State Machine (LTSSM) flag > > > > > > in 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 setting the PCI_EXP_LINCTL_RL flag does not > > > > > > instantly imply a LTSSM state change (e.g. L0s to recovery state > > > > > > transition takes some time), LTSSM can be in L0 but link training has > > > > > > not finished yet. Thus a lower L0 LTSSM state followed by a L0 or upper > > > > > > state sequence has to be seen to be sure that link training has been > > > > > > done. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Remi, > > > > > > > > > > I am a bit confused, so you are saying that the LTSSM flag in the > > > > > LMI config register can't be used to detect when training is completed ? > > > > > > > > Not exactly, I am saying that PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT from PCI_EXP_LNKSTA > > > > register can't be used with this hardware, but can be emulated with > > > > LTSSM flag. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Certainly it can't be used by ASPM core that relies on: > > > > > > > > > > PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT flag > > > > > > > > > > in the PCI_EXP_LNKSTA register, and that's what you are setting through > > > > > this timeout mechanism IIUC. > > > > > > > > > > Please elaborate on that. > > > > > > > > The problem here is that the hardware does not change PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT > > > > at all. So in order to support link re-training feature we need to > > > > emulate this flag. To do so LTSSM flag can be used. > > > > > > Understood. > > > > > > > Indeed we can set the emulated PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT as soon as re-training > > > > is asked and wait for LTSSM flag to be back to a configured state > > > > (e.g. L0, L0s) before clearing it. > > > > > > The check for the LTSSM is carried out through advk_pcie_link_up() > > > (ie register CFG_REG), correct ? > > > > > > > Yes that is correct. > > > > > > The problem with that is that LTSSM flag does not change instantly after > > > > link re-training has been asked, and will stay in configured state for a > > > > small amount of time. So the idea is to poll the LTSSM flag and wait for > > > > it to enter a recovery state then waiting for it to be back in > > > > configured state. > > > > > > When you say "poll" you mean checking advk_pcie_link_up() ? > > > > > > > I mean checking advk_pcie_link_up() in a loop. This loop is done by the > > user (e.g. ASPM core). ASPM core waits for PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT to be > > cleared in pcie_aspm_configure_common_clock() just after it has set > > PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RL. > > > > So the idea was to check advk_pcie_link_up() each time ASPM core checks > > the PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT flag. Please see below patch for an alternative > > to that. > > > > > More below on the code. > > > > > > > The timeout is only here as a fallback in the unlikely event that we > > > > missed the LTSSM flag entering recovery state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am picking Bjorn's brain on this patch since what you are doing > > > > > seems quite arbitrary and honestly it is a bit of a hack. > > > > > > > > Yes, sorry, it is a bit of a hack because I try to workaround a > > > > hardware issue. > > > > > > No problems, it is not your fault. > > > > > > > > Please note that vendor has been contacted about this in the meantime > > > > and answered the following: > > > > > > > > "FW can poll LTSSM state equals any of the following values: 0xB or 0xD > > > > or 0xC or 0xE. After that, polls for LTSSM equals 0x10. For your > > > > information, LTSSM will transit from 0x10 -> 0xB -> 0xD -> 0xC or 0xE > > > > ........... -> 0x10". > > > > > > > > It is basically what this patch does, I've just added a timeout fallback > > > > to not poll LTSSM state forever if its transition to 0xB, 0xD, 0xC or > > > > 0xE has been missed. > > > > > > When you say "missed" you mean advk_pcie_link_up() returning true, right ? > > > > > > > Not exactly, I mean that LTSSM had the time to go down and back up > > between advk_pcie_link_up() because, for example, ASPM core loop took > > too much time between two PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT flag checks. > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > +static int advk_pcie_link_retraining(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + if (!advk_pcie_link_up(pcie)) { > > > > > > That's the bit I find confusing. Is this check here to detect if the > > > link went through the sequence below ? Should not it be carried > > > out only if (pcie->rl_asked == 1) ? > > > > > > "... LTSSM will transit from 0x10 -> 0xB -> 0xD -> 0xC or 0xE > > > ........... -> 0x10". > > > > Yes it is the check to detect the sequence. advk_pcie_link_up() returns > > false if LTSSM <= 0x10. > > > > This cannot be done only if (pcie->rl_asked == 1) because I still > > want this function to return 1 if link is still down. > > > > > > > > > > > + pcie->rl_asked = 0; > > > > > > Why ? > > > > > > > rl_asked is not a good name, I could have called it > > pcie->wait_for_link_down instead. So if advk_pcie_link_up() returns > > false that means that we don't need to wait for link being down any more > > and just wait for (LTSSM >= 0x10). In this case the delay is not needed. > > > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > > + } > > > > > > + > > > > > > + if (pcie->rl_asked && time_before(jiffies, pcie->rl_deadline)) > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > > This ensures that if the LTSSM >= 0x10 we still wait for a delay before > > > considering the link up (because I suppose, after asking a retraining > > > it takes a while for the LTSSM state to become < 0x10), correct ? > > > > Yes it takes a while to become < 0x10 after retraining hence the delay. > > But here we don't need to always wait for a delay. Indeed if we've > > already seen the link being < 0x10 (i.e if "pcie->rl_asked == 0") and > > if after that link is >= 0x10 then we know that retraining process has > > finished. > > > > Anyway I did it this way because I wanted to keep > > advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_write() from polling. But this is > > obviously a bad reason as it makes the code way too complex and relies > > on user (ASPM core) to do the poll instead. > > > > So if you find the following better I'll send a v3 with that: > > > > --- > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > index eb58dfdaba1b..67e8ae4e313e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > @@ -180,6 +180,9 @@ > > #define LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 10 > > #define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN 90000 > > #define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX 100000 > > +#define RETRAIN_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 20 > > +#define RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN 2000 > > +#define RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX 5000 > > > > #define MSI_IRQ_NUM 32 > > > > @@ -239,6 +242,17 @@ 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; > > + usleep_range(RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN, RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX); > > + } > > +} > > + > > static void advk_pcie_setup_hw(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > { > > u32 reg; > > @@ -426,11 +440,19 @@ advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_read(struct pci_bridge_emul *bridge, > > return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED; > > } > > > > + case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL: { > > + u32 val = advk_readl(pcie, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg) & > > + ~(PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT << 16); > > + if (!advk_pcie_link_up(pcie)) > > Is this correct ? > > "PCI Express Base Specification Rev4.0 Version 1.0" page 758 > > "Link Training: this read-only bit indicates that > the physical layer LTSSM is in the Configuration or > Recovery state or that 1b was written to the Retrain > Link..." > > Isn't that a subset of states for which !advk_pcie_link_up() > return true ? Yes you are right, unfortunately I don't know exactly what the LTSSM value for Configuration or Recovery states. All I can observe is that LTSSM goes to 0xb which is likely either Recovery or Configuration state. Sorry for long response delay, I was waiting for Marvell answer on that specific subject but I don't think it is going to come anytime soon. So in the meantime I suggest we could either use !advk_pcie_link_up() or check for LTSSM != 0xb. Would you be ok with that ? Thanks, -- Remi