Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-67437-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <a09e5b69-7938-4da3-861a-4b2fbf827552@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:48:13 +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
Content-Language: en-US
To: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
 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>
Cc: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>,
 linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
References: <20240215-topic-pci_sleep-v1-1-7ac79ac9739a@linaro.org>
 <361f7ae0-6de1-423c-bb64-82a5acccb502@linux.intel.com>
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: <361f7ae0-6de1-423c-bb64-82a5acccb502@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 15.02.2024 15:51, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> 
> On 2/15/24 2:39 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> 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);
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	if (retries >= LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES) {
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
>> index 26dae4837462..3f145d6a8a31 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
>> @@ -63,8 +63,7 @@
>>  
>>  /* 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 90 ms is an acceptable value, why not use it?

I suppose I can do that indeed.. Usually I go for the safer option
when cleaning up old code, but you're right, 90 should be ok

(unless somebody has some documentation stating otherwise)

Konrad