Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 27 Mar 2021 01:14:10 +0100
From:   Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>
To:     Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= <pali@kernel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@redhat.com>,
        Marek =?utf-8?B?QmVow7pu?= <kabel@kernel.org>,
        vtolkm@gmail.com, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Disallow retraining link for Atheros QCA98xx chips
 on non-Gen1 PCIe bridges
Message-ID: <YF540gjh156QIirA@rocinante>
References: <20210326124326.21163-1-pali@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210326124326.21163-1-pali@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Pali,

Thank you for sending the patch over!

[...]
> +static int pcie_change_tls_to_gen1(struct pci_dev *parent)

Just a nitpick, so feel free to ignore it.  I would just call the
variable "dev" as we pass a pointer to a particular device, but it does
not matter as much, so I am leaving this to you.

[...]
> +	if (ret == 0) {

You prefer this style over "if (!ret)"?  Just asking in the view of the
style that seem to be preferred in the code base at the moment.

> +		/* Verify that new value was really set */
> +		pcie_capability_read_word(parent, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2, &reg16);
> +		if ((reg16 & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS) != PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS_2_5GT)
> +			ret = -EINVAL;

I am wondering about this verification - did you have a case where the
device would not properly set its capability, or accept the write and do
nothing?

> +	if (ret != 0)

I think "if (ret)" would be fine to use here, unless you prefer being
more explicit.  See my question about style above.

>  static bool pcie_retrain_link(struct pcie_link_state *link)
>  {
>  	struct pci_dev *parent = link->pdev;
>  	unsigned long end_jiffies;
>  	u16 reg16;
> +	u32 reg32;
> +
> +		/* Check if link is capable of higher speed than 2.5 GT/s and needs quirk */
> +		pcie_capability_read_dword(parent, PCI_EXP_LNKCAP, &reg32);
> +		if ((reg32 & PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS) > PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS_2_5GB) {

I wonder if moving this check to pcie_change_tls_to_gen1() would make
more sense?  It would then make this function a little cleaner.  What do
you think?

[...]
> +static void quirk_no_bus_reset_and_no_retrain_link(struct pci_dev *dev)
> +{
> +	dev->dev_flags |= PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_BUS_RESET | PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RETRAIN_LINK_WHEN_NOT_GEN1;
> +}
[...]

I know that the style has been changed to allow 100 characters width and
that checkpatch.pl now also does not warn about line length, as per
commit bdc48fa11e46 ("checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate 80-column
warning"), but I think Bjorn still prefers 80 characters, thus this line
above might have to be aligned.

Krzysztof