Received: by 2002:a25:824b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d11csp7989819ybn; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 01:08:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxN77GXVWUNBMhxdn+hif/eESnggHdw4GDv068D8NSfPrUi+pCjUD8oEbyvzc6qAKA8w9Sf X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5acd:: with SMTP id x13mr22332200ejs.186.1569917322578; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 01:08:42 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1569917322; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=1H06RiuFuNZbiC0OU0t5RtnowMl/Jiw0hXJkTy7IN7JNyOMTS0gpJbTGH89x2SSfIj lehNQ9y+6YCuk5Z6xdC3MwESlF9G7+CWE0n+LRrYvHYqax4GtRsDucatolEKo4VSKSm7 FFBj6pCRLKyHjVHyssiSDmoE3QOXpysWE8QK3XPYUTGWL66eukIIblnGj5KvbX/GLtM4 d5SY2JG1Ezh0jdx7XR6ZaHFoNWbWsNZvKyKeymULLBmpGZBU0VS74bATwphnkqG8vDVk SvSaaaAb4i9tg4KJLAqW4oNYZPV9ZwRyfB+a3x6bFxYCqsS4Vp5dKKDQyLq2anM3dEeC 6pIQ== 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=h+eUeqafy2mT97LZxExxI8Vc5n02O39iY4hobv7t+i4=; b=FgwiCThugI/9nlXuROTjpoWpIDbVLv7nPX7JKL5edjXR9LfQxLN8UdBmcY/Vvkb4Cs l+JFNFTbDyxhjvyIQUotszf0rCuZQyKNWljx/RGwrcNUF9A0rJ5f9SalJFG6RvpoiOpH kAFOBkvGaG1wakHyweYA8hVQsBxvtZYF2sqG8Ii0NRddX/A8immsPpIeMGul8mD3nSMh 6qNRJntaL7MtN3rHfnr1OxM66GPNs8CcvtXi1F2d3mXStBgQ/ZGMVtSg9lnXQnfFUq3K FshR0919TC5uyoLQOzOvH+Z82EeqGj9ITXLyigUcu3v0/I5+HHIV21Z/20XSPyvraDGW TJHw== 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 a14si9753168eda.111.2019.10.01.01.08.17; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 01:08:42 -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 S1729457AbfJAIFu (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 1 Oct 2019 04:05:50 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:43288 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726703AbfJAIFu (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Oct 2019 04:05:50 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D768337; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 01:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.37.6.20]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 78E413F739; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 01:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 09:05:46 +0100 From: Andrew Murray To: Remi Pommarel Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Bjorn Helgaas , Ellie Reeves , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: aardvark: Use LTSSM state to build link training flag Message-ID: <20191001080546.GI42880@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20190522213351.21366-3-repk@triplefau.lt> <20190930154017.GF42880@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20190930165230.GA12568@voidbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190930165230.GA12568@voidbox> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1+81 (426a6c1) (2018-08-26) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 06:52:30PM +0200, Remi Pommarel wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:40:18PM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Remi Pommarel wrote: > > > Aardvark's PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT flag in its link status register is not > > > implemented and does not reflect the actual link training state (the > > > flag is always set to 0). In order to support link re-training feature > > > this flag has to be emulated. The Link Training and Status State > > > Machine (LTSSM) flag in Aardvark 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 after asking a link retraining it takes a while > > > for the LTSSM state to become less than 0x10 (due to L0s to recovery > > > state transition delays), LTSSM can still be in L0 while link training > > > has not finished yet. So this waits for link to be in recovery or lesser > > > state before returning after asking for a link retrain. > > > > > > [1] "PCI Express Base Specification", REV. 4.0 > > > PCI Express, February 19 2014, Table 4-14 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Remi Pommarel > > > --- > > > Changes since v1: > > > - Rename retraining flag field > > > - Fix DEVCTL register writing > > > > > > Changes since v2: > > > - Rewrite patch logic so it is more legible > > > > > > Please note that I will unlikely be able to answer any comments from May > > > 24th to June 10th. > > > --- > > > drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > > index 134e0306ff00..8803083b2174 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c > > > @@ -180,6 +180,8 @@ > > > #define LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 10 > > > #define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN 90000 > > > #define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX 100000 > > > +#define RETRAIN_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 10 > > > +#define RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_US 2000 > > > > > > #define MSI_IRQ_NUM 32 > > > > > > @@ -239,6 +241,17 @@ 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; > > > + udelay(RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_US); > > > + } > > > +} > > > + > > > static void advk_pcie_setup_hw(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > { > > > u32 reg; > > > @@ -426,11 +439,20 @@ advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_read(struct pci_bridge_emul *bridge, > > > return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED; > > > } > > > > > > + case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL: { > > > + /* u32 contains both PCI_EXP_LNKCTL and PCI_EXP_LNKSTA */ > > > + u32 val = advk_readl(pcie, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg) & > > > + ~(PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT << 16); > > > > The commit message says "the flag is always set to 0" - therefore I guess > > you don't *need* to mask out the LT bit here? I assume this is just > > belt-and-braces but thought I'd check incase I've misunderstood or if your > > commit message is inaccurate. > > > > In any case masking out the bit (or adding a comment) makes this code more > > readable as the reader doesn't need to know what the hardware does with this > > bit. > > Actually vendor eventually responded that the bit was reserved, but > during my tests it remains to 0. > > So yes I am masking this out mainly for belt-and-braces and legibility. Thanks for the clarification. > > > > + if (!advk_pcie_link_up(pcie)) > > > + val |= (PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT << 16); > > > + *value = val; > > > + return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED; > > > + } > > > + > > > case PCI_CAP_LIST_ID: > > > case PCI_EXP_DEVCAP: > > > case PCI_EXP_DEVCTL: > > > case PCI_EXP_LNKCAP: > > > - case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL: > > > *value = advk_readl(pcie, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg); > > > return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED; > > > default: > > > @@ -447,8 +469,13 @@ advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_write(struct pci_bridge_emul *bridge, > > > > > > switch (reg) { > > > case PCI_EXP_DEVCTL: > > > + advk_writel(pcie, new, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg); > > > + break; > > > > Why is this here? > > > > Before PCI_EXP_DEVCTL and PCI_EXP_LNKCTL were doing the same thing, but > as now PCI_EXP_LNKCTL does extra things (i.e. wait for link to > successfully retrain), they do have different behaviours. > > So this is here so PCI_EXP_DEVCTL keeps its old behaviour and do not > wait for link retrain in case an unrelated (PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RL) bit is > set. Oh yes, of course! Thanks and: Reviewed-by: Andrew Murray > > -- > Remi > > > > + > > > case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL: > > > advk_writel(pcie, new, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg); > > > + if (new & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RL) > > > + advk_pcie_wait_for_retrain(pcie); > > > break; > > > > > > case PCI_EXP_RTCTL: > > > -- > > > 2.20.1 > > >