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;
Date:   Fri, 8 Jul 2022 14:17:09 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
Cc:     Robert Marko <robimarko@gmail.com>,
        Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@mm-sol.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        lpieralisi@kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, kw@linux.com,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, p.zabel@pengutronix.de,
        jingoohan1@gmail.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        johan+linaro@kernel.org,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] PCI: qcom: Move all DBI register accesses after
 phy_power_on()
Message-ID: <20220708191709.GA366918@bhelgaas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <62c8633a.1c69fb81.f15e3.fbd0@mx.google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 07:02:48PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 06:47:57PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 06:39:37PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 21:41, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:44:20PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
> > > > > IPQ8074 requires the PHY to be powered on before accessing DBI registers.
> > > > > It's not clear whether other variants have the same dependency, but there
> > > > > seems to be no reason for them to be different, so move all the DBI
> > > > > accesses from .init() to .post_init() so they are all after phy_power_on().
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robimarko@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > Would any of the qcom driver folks care to review and ack this?
> > > > Stanimir, Andy, Bjorn A (from get_maintainer.pl)?
> > 
> > Hi Bjorn,
> > I tested this on ipq806x and the current patch cause regression as pci
> > doesn't work anymore...
> > This is a before the patch [1] and this is an after [2].
> > 
> > As you notice the main problem here is
> > [    2.559962] qcom-pcie 1b700000.pci: Phy link never came up
> > 
> > The cause of this has already been bisected and actually it was a fixup
> > pushed some time ago for 2_1_0.
> > 
> > Uboot can leave the pci in an underfined state and this
> > writel(1, pcie->parf + PCIE20_PARF_PHY_CTRL);
> > is never called.
> > 
> > This is mandatory to a correct init and MUST be called before regulator
> > enable and reset deassert or the "Phy link never came up" problem is
> > triggered.
> > 
> > So to fix this we just have to have
> > writel(1, pcie->parf + PCIE20_PARF_PHY_CTRL);
> > in qcom_pcie_init_2_1_0 right after the reset_contro_assert.
> > 
> > This command is also present in qcom_pcie_init_2_3_2 where the same
> > exact reg is written so I assume 2_3_2 have the same regression and the
> > write must be placed in init and can't be moved to post_init.
> > 
> > Feel free to tell me how to proceed if I should post an additional patch
> > or you prefer Robi to respin this with the few lines reverted.
> > 
> > [1] https://gist.github.com/Ansuel/ec827319e585630356fc586273db6f0d
> > [2] https://gist.github.com/Ansuel/63fbcab2681cd28a61ec52d7874fa30d
> 
> While testing this I notice something odd...
> 
> 2_4_2 prepare the pipe clock only AFTER PCIe clocks and reset are
> enabled while in 2_1_0... That made me think there could be a problem
> with the current code of 2_1_0... A quick change made me discover that
> the problem is actually that we enable prepare_enable clock BEFORE the
> value is written in PCIE20_PARF_PHY_CTRL.
> 
> By moving the clk_bulk_prepare_enable after the "enable PCIe clocks and
> resets" make the pci work with the current change...
> 
> So it could be that the current changes are correct and it's really just
> a bug in 2_1_0 enabling clock before writing the correct value...
> 
> Tell me how to proceed... think at this point a good idea would be to
> create a separate patch and fix this for good.

Hmm, I think I made a mistake when I put this patch in the middle and
applied other stuff on top of it.  I'd like to just postpone this
patch while we work out these issues, but I think it's not completely
trivial since it's in the middle.  I'll try to straighten this out
next week.

> Also bonus question, should I drop the bulk_prepare_enable and follow
> the pattern of 2_3_2 and enable aux, cfg, master and slave in init and
> pipe in post init or I can keep it? (still have to test but I assume
> that it will work.)

I haven't looked at the code again, but will just offer the opinion
that unnecessary differences in structure often hide bugs, and they're
always minor speed bumps for readers.

Bjorn