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;
Date:   Mon, 21 Oct 2019 12:17:36 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     Dilip Kota <eswara.kota@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     jingoohan1@gmail.com, gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com,
        lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, andrew.murray@arm.com, robh@kernel.org,
        martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        hch@infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andriy.shevchenko@intel.com,
        cheol.yong.kim@intel.com, chuanhua.lei@linux.intel.com,
        qi-ming.wu@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] dwc: PCI: intel: PCIe RC controller driver
Message-ID: <20191021171736.GA233393@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c46ba3f4187fe53807948b4f10996b89a75c492c.1571638827.git.eswara.kota@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 02:39:19PM +0800, Dilip Kota wrote:
> Add support to PCIe RC controller on Intel Gateway SoCs.
> PCIe controller is based of Synopsys DesignWare pci core.
> 
> Intel PCIe driver requires Upconfig support, fast training
> sequence configuration and link speed change. So adding the
> respective helper functions in the pcie DesignWare framework.
> It also programs hardware autonomous speed during speed
> configuration so defining it in pci_regs.h.
> 

> +static void intel_pcie_link_setup(struct intel_pcie_port *lpp)
> +{
> +	u32 val;
> +
> +	val = pcie_rc_cfg_rd(lpp, PCIE_CAP_OFST + PCI_EXP_LNKCAP);
> +	lpp->max_speed = FIELD_GET(PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS, val);
> +	lpp->max_width = FIELD_GET(PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_MLW, val);
> +
> +	val = pcie_rc_cfg_rd(lpp, PCIE_CAP_OFST + PCI_EXP_LNKCTL);
> +
> +	val &= ~(PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_LD | PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_ASPMC);
> +	val |= (PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_SLC << 16) | PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_CCC |
> +	       PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RCB;

Link Control is only 16 bits wide, so "PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_SLC << 16"
wouldn't make sense.  But I guess you're writing a device-specific
register that is not actually the Link Control as documented in PCIe
r5.0, sec 7.5.3.7, even though the bits are similar?

Likewise, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RCB is RO for Root Ports, but maybe you're
telling the device what it should advertise in its Link Control?

PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_CCC is RW.  But doesn't it depend on the components on
both ends of the link?  Do you know what device is at the other end?
I would have assumed that you'd have to start with CCC==0, which
should be most conservative, then set CCC=1 only if you know both ends
have a common clock.

> +	pcie_rc_cfg_wr(lpp, val, PCIE_CAP_OFST + PCI_EXP_LNKCTL);
> +}
> +

> +static void intel_pcie_max_speed_setup(struct intel_pcie_port *lpp)
> +{
> +	u32 reg, val;
> +
> +	reg = pcie_rc_cfg_rd(lpp, PCIE_CAP_OFST + PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2);
> +	switch (lpp->link_gen) {
> +	case PCIE_LINK_SPEED_GEN1:
> +		reg &= ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS;
> +		reg |= PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_HASD|
> +			PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS_2_5GT;
> +		break;
> +	case PCIE_LINK_SPEED_GEN2:
> +		reg &= ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS;
> +		reg |= PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_HASD|
> +			PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS_5_0GT;
> +		break;
> +	case PCIE_LINK_SPEED_GEN3:
> +		reg &= ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS;
> +		reg |= PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_HASD|
> +			PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS_8_0GT;
> +		break;
> +	case PCIE_LINK_SPEED_GEN4:
> +		reg &= ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS;
> +		reg |= PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_HASD|
> +			PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS_16_0GT;
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		/* Use hardware capability */
> +		val = pcie_rc_cfg_rd(lpp, PCIE_CAP_OFST + PCI_EXP_LNKCAP);
> +		val = FIELD_GET(PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS, val);
> +		reg &= ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_HASD;
> +		reg |= val;
> +		break;
> +	}
> +
> +	pcie_rc_cfg_wr(lpp, reg, PCIE_CAP_OFST + PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2);
> +	dw_pcie_link_set_n_fts(&lpp->pci, lpp->n_fts);

There are other users of of_pci_get_max_link_speed() that look sort of
similar to this (dra7xx_pcie_establish_link(),
ks_pcie_set_link_speed(), tegra_pcie_prepare_host()).  Do these *need*
to be different, or is there something that could be factored out?

> +}
> +
> +
> +

Remove extra blank lines here.

> +static void intel_pcie_port_logic_setup(struct intel_pcie_port *lpp)
> ...

> +	/* Intel PCIe doesn't configure IO region, so configure
> +	 * viewport to not to access IO region during register
> +	 * read write operations.
> +	 */

This comment doesn't describe the code.  Is there supposed to be some
code here that configures the viewport?  Where do we tell the viewport
not to access IO?

I guess maybe this means something like "tell
dw_pcie_access_other_conf() not to program an outbound ATU for I/O"?
I don't know that structure well enough to write this in a way that
makes sense, but this code doesn't look like it's configuring any
viewports.

Please use usual multi-line comment style, i.e.,

  /*
   * Intel PCIe ...
   */

> +	pci->num_viewport = data->num_viewport;
> +	dev_info(dev, "Intel PCIe Root Complex Port %d init done\n", lpp->id);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}