Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-67433-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <a12217ec-ce63-4312-a412-9a5c8d1d92fe@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:46:55 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: Use the correct sleep function in wait_for_link
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
 Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
Cc: Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
 Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
 Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
References: <20240215170258.GA1292702@bhelgaas>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
Autocrypt: addr=konrad.dybcio@linaro.org; keydata=
 xsFNBF9ALYUBEADWAhxdTBWrwAgDQQzc1O/bJ5O7b6cXYxwbBd9xKP7MICh5YA0DcCjJSOum
 BB/OmIWU6X+LZW6P88ZmHe+KeyABLMP5s1tJNK1j4ntT7mECcWZDzafPWF4F6m4WJOG27kTJ
 HGWdmtO+RvadOVi6CoUDqALsmfS3MUG5Pj2Ne9+0jRg4hEnB92AyF9rW2G3qisFcwPgvatt7
 TXD5E38mLyOPOUyXNj9XpDbt1hNwKQfiidmPh5e7VNAWRnW1iCMMoKqzM1Anzq7e5Afyeifz
 zRcQPLaqrPjnKqZGL2BKQSZDh6NkI5ZLRhhHQf61fkWcUpTp1oDC6jWVfT7hwRVIQLrrNj9G
 MpPzrlN4YuAqKeIer1FMt8cq64ifgTzxHzXsMcUdclzq2LTk2RXaPl6Jg/IXWqUClJHbamSk
 t1bfif3SnmhA6TiNvEpDKPiT3IDs42THU6ygslrBxyROQPWLI9IL1y8S6RtEh8H+NZQWZNzm
 UQ3imZirlPjxZtvz1BtnnBWS06e7x/UEAguj7VHCuymVgpl2Za17d1jj81YN5Rp5L9GXxkV1
 aUEwONM3eCI3qcYm5JNc5X+JthZOWsbIPSC1Rhxz3JmWIwP1udr5E3oNRe9u2LIEq+wH/toH
 kpPDhTeMkvt4KfE5m5ercid9+ZXAqoaYLUL4HCEw+HW0DXcKDwARAQABzShLb25yYWQgRHli
 Y2lvIDxrb25yYWQuZHliY2lvQGxpbmFyby5vcmc+wsGOBBMBCAA4FiEEU24if9oCL2zdAAQV
 R4cBcg5dfFgFAmQ5bqwCGwMFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQR4cBcg5dfFjO
 BQ//YQV6fkbqQCceYebGg6TiisWCy8LG77zV7DB0VMIWJv7Km7Sz0QQrHQVzhEr3trNenZrf
 yy+o2tQOF2biICzbLM8oyQPY8B///KJTWI2khoB8IJSJq3kNG68NjPg2vkP6CMltC/X3ohAo
 xL2UgwN5vj74QnlNneOjc0vGbtA7zURNhTz5P/YuTudCqcAbxJkbqZM4WymjQhe0XgwHLkiH
 5LHSZ31MRKp/+4Kqs4DTXMctc7vFhtUdmatAExDKw8oEz5NbskKbW+qHjW1XUcUIrxRr667V
 GWH6MkVceT9ZBrtLoSzMLYaQXvi3sSAup0qiJiBYszc/VOu3RbIpNLRcXN3KYuxdQAptacTE
 mA+5+4Y4DfC3rUSun+hWLDeac9z9jjHm5rE998OqZnOU9aztbd6zQG5VL6EKgsVXAZD4D3RP
 x1NaAjdA3MD06eyvbOWiA5NSzIcC8UIQvgx09xm7dThCuQYJR4Yxjd+9JPJHI6apzNZpDGvQ
 BBZzvwxV6L1CojUEpnilmMG1ZOTstktWpNzw3G2Gis0XihDUef0MWVsQYJAl0wfiv/0By+XK
 mm2zRR+l/dnzxnlbgJ5pO0imC2w0TVxLkAp0eo0LHw619finad2u6UPQAkZ4oj++iIGrJkt5
 Lkn2XgB+IW8ESflz6nDY3b5KQRF8Z6XLP0+IEdLOOARkOW7yEgorBgEEAZdVAQUBAQdAwmUx
 xrbSCx2ksDxz7rFFGX1KmTkdRtcgC6F3NfuNYkYDAQgHwsF2BBgBCAAgFiEEU24if9oCL2zd
 AAQVR4cBcg5dfFgFAmQ5bvICGwwACgkQR4cBcg5dfFju1Q//Xta1ShwL0MLSC1KL1lXGXeRM
 8arzfyiB5wJ9tb9U/nZvhhdfilEDLe0jKJY0RJErbdRHsalwQCrtq/1ewQpMpsRxXzAjgfRN
 jc4tgxRWmI+aVTzSRpywNahzZBT695hMz81cVZJoZzaV0KaMTlSnBkrviPz1nIGHYCHJxF9r
 cIu0GSIyUjZ/7xslxdvjpLth16H27JCWDzDqIQMtg61063gNyEyWgt1qRSaK14JIH/DoYRfn
 jfFQSC8bffFjat7BQGFz4ZpRavkMUFuDirn5Tf28oc5ebe2cIHp4/kajTx/7JOxWZ80U70mA
 cBgEeYSrYYnX+UJsSxpzLc/0sT1eRJDEhI4XIQM4ClIzpsCIN5HnVF76UQXh3a9zpwh3dk8i
 bhN/URmCOTH+LHNJYN/MxY8wuukq877DWB7k86pBs5IDLAXmW8v3gIDWyIcgYqb2v8QO2Mqx
 YMqL7UZxVLul4/JbllsQB8F/fNI8AfttmAQL9cwo6C8yDTXKdho920W4WUR9k8NT/OBqWSyk
 bGqMHex48FVZhexNPYOd58EY9/7mL5u0sJmo+jTeb4JBgIbFPJCFyng4HwbniWgQJZ1WqaUC
 nas9J77uICis2WH7N8Bs9jy0wQYezNzqS+FxoNXmDQg2jetX8en4bO2Di7Pmx0jXA4TOb9TM
 izWDgYvmBE8=
In-Reply-To: <20240215170258.GA1292702@bhelgaas>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 15.02.2024 18:02, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 02:35:13PM +0100, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
>> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:39:31 +0100
>>
>>> According to [1], msleep should be used for large sleeps, such as the
>>> 100-ish ms one in this function. Comply with the guide and use it.
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>> Tested on Qualcomm SC8280XP CRD
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 2 +-
>>>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 3 +--
>>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
>>> index 250cf7f40b85..abce6afceb91 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
>>> @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ int dw_pcie_wait_for_link(struct dw_pcie *pci)
>>>  		if (dw_pcie_link_up(pci))
>>>  			break;
>>>  
>>> -		usleep_range(LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN, LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX);
>>> +		msleep(LINK_WAIT_MSLEEP_MAX);
>>
>> Just use fsleep(LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX) and let the kernel decide which
>> function to pick.

IMO, fsleep only makes sense when the argument is variable.. This way, we
can save on bothering the compiler or adding an unnecessary branch

> 
> Odd.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst?id=v6.7#n114
> mentions fsleep() (with no real guidance about when to use it), but
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt 
> seems to be a stale copy from 2017, before fsleep() was added.  I
> emailed helpdesk@kernel.org to see if the stale content can be
> removed.
> 
> I do think fsleep() should be more widely used.
> 
>>>  /* Parameters for the waiting for link up routine */
>>>  #define LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES		10
>>> -#define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN		90000
>>> -#define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX		100000
>>> +#define LINK_WAIT_MSLEEP_MAX		100
> 
> Since you're touching this anyway, it would be helpful to include the
> units on the timeout.
> 
> USLEEP/MSLEEP is definitely a hint, but I think the "SLEEP" part
> suggests something about atomic/non-atomic context and isn't relevant
> to the time interval itself, and something like "TIMEOUT" would be
> better.
> 
> I think an explicit "_US" or "_MS" would better indicate the units.
> 
> This is turning into a long tangent, but I'm not a huge fan of the
> LINK_WAIT_* pattern where I have to look up the code that uses
> LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES and LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX and do the math to see
> what the actual timeout is.  Obviously not fodder for *this* patch.

Might as well do that indeed

Konrad