Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <6f22fe3a-2197-b373-8c48-5c146648166e@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:03:42 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: qcom: fix IPQ8074 Gen2 support
Content-Language: en-GB
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc:     Robert Marko <robimarko@gmail.com>, svarbanov@mm-sol.com,
        agross@kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
        lpieralisi@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, kw@linux.com,
        bhelgaas@google.com, p.zabel@pengutronix.de, jingoohan1@gmail.com,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, johan+linaro@kernel.org
References: <20220621211604.GA1334281@bhelgaas>
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220621211604.GA1334281@bhelgaas>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 22/06/2022 00:16, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 11:45:12PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 23:32, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 01:23:30PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
>>>> IPQ8074 has one Gen2 and one Gen3 port, currently the Gen2 port will
>>>> cause the system to hang as its using DBI registers in the .init
>>>> and those are only accesible after phy_power_on().
>>>
>>> Is the fact that IPQ8074 has both a Gen2 and a Gen3 port relevant to
>>> this patch?  I don't see the connection.
>>>
>>> I see that qcom_pcie_host_init() does:
>>>
>>>    qcom_pcie_host_init
>>>      pcie->cfg->ops->init(pcie)
>>>      phy_power_on(pcie->phy)
>>>      pcie->cfg->ops->post_init(pcie)
>>>
>>> and that you're moving DBI register accesses from
>>> qcom_pcie_init_2_3_3() to qcom_pcie_post_init_2_3_3().
>>>
>>> But I also see DBI register accesses in other .init() functions:
>>>
>>>    qcom_pcie_init_2_1_0
>>>    qcom_pcie_init_1_0_0      (oddly out of order)
>>>    qcom_pcie_init_2_3_2
>>>    qcom_pcie_init_2_4_0
>>>
>>> Why do these accesses not need to be moved?  I assume it's because
>>> pcie->phy is an optional PHY and phy_power_on() does nothing on those
>>> controllers?
>>>
>>> Whatever the reason, I think the DBI accesses should be done
>>> consistently in .post_init().  I see that Dmitry's previous patches
>>> removed all those .post_init() functions, but I think the consistency
>>> is worth having.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we could reorder the patches so this patch comes first, moves
>>> the DBI accesses into .post_init(), then Dmitry's patches could be
>>> rebased on top to drop the clock handling?
>>
>> I don't think there is a need to reorder patches. My patches do not
>> remove support for post_init(), they drop the callbacks code. Thus one
>> can reinstate necessary code back.
> 
> There's not a *need* to reorder them, but I think it would make the
> patches smaller and more readable because we wouldn't be removing and
> then re-adding the functions.

Ack. I'm fine then with rebasing my patches on top of Robert's patchset. 
I'll send the next revision after getting this patchset into the form.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry