On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 05:54:21AM +0000, Hongxing Zhu wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@xxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 12:52 AM > > To: Hongxing Zhu <hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; > > lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; Marcel Ziswiler > > <marcel.ziswiler@xxxxxxxxxxx>; tharvey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > kishon@xxxxxx; vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; > > galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx; > > linux-phy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dl-linux-imx > > <linux-imx@xxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 8/8] PCI: imx: Add the imx8mm pcie support > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > Apologies for a very late review! Especially since Lorenzo already took > > patches as per: > > > > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flor > > e.kernel.org%2Flinux-pci%2F163965080404.20006.52416095516435017 > > 49.b4-ty%40arm.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Chongxing.zhu%40nxp > > .com%7C8afb673348214261883608d9c0b45b1d%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa > > 92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637752703124166805%7CUnknown%7 > > CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha > > WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=rfmN1Xojubap2vi3J4Jol3ozy > > N1Q2q7YiBM5bqMm22s%3D&reserved=0 > > > > However, perhaps it's not too late. > [Richard Zhu] Hi Krzysztof: > Thanks for your review. > But I don't know how to handle this situation. > How about that I add this refine patch into the following bug fix and > refine patch-set later? > PCI: imx6: refine codes and add compliance tests mode support > " https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/cover/1635747478-25562-1-git-send-email-hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx/"; > > > > > [...] > > > @@ -446,6 +452,13 @@ static int imx6_pcie_enable_ref_clk(struct > > imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie) > > > break; > > > case IMX7D: > > > break; > > > + case IMX8MM: > > > + ret = clk_prepare_enable(imx6_pcie->pcie_aux); > > > + if (ret) { > > > + dev_err(dev, "unable to enable pcie_aux clock\n"); > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + break; > > > > You can drop the inner break, it wouldn't do much here, unless this was > > intended to be a return? > [Richard Zhu] Yes, it is. The inner break can be dropped. The error return > would be handled in the end. > > > > > > @@ -538,6 +559,10 @@ static void > > imx6_pcie_deassert_core_reset(struct imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie) > > > case IMX8MQ: > > > reset_control_deassert(imx6_pcie->pciephy_reset); > > > break; > > > + case IMX8MM: > > > + if (phy_init(imx6_pcie->phy) != 0) > > > + dev_err(dev, "Waiting for PHY ready timeout!\n"); > > > + break; > > > > If the above, you can keep the same style as used throughout the file > > already, so it would just simply be: > > > > if (phy_init(imx6_pcie->phy)) > > > > Also, a nitpick: to be consistent with other such messages here, the error > > message would be all lower-case letters. > [Richard Zhu] Yes, it is. > > > > [...] > > > @@ -614,6 +639,8 @@ static void imx6_pcie_configure_type(struct > > > imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie) static void imx6_pcie_init_phy(struct > > imx6_pcie > > > *imx6_pcie) { > > > switch (imx6_pcie->drvdata->variant) { > > > + case IMX8MM: > > > + break; > > > case IMX8MQ: > > > > Would it warrant a comment that adds a note there to this single bare > > break? Perhaps this version is not support, lack this particular > > functionality, etc. > [Richard Zhu] Yes, it's easier to understand after add one comment. > > > > [...] > > > @@ -1089,10 +1122,39 @@ static int imx6_pcie_probe(struct > > platform_device *pdev) > > > dev_err(dev, "Failed to get PCIE APPS reset control\n"); > > > return PTR_ERR(imx6_pcie->apps_reset); > > > } > > > + break; > > > + case IMX8MM: > > > + imx6_pcie->pcie_aux = devm_clk_get(dev, "pcie_aux"); > > > + if (IS_ERR(imx6_pcie->pcie_aux)) > > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, > > PTR_ERR(imx6_pcie->pcie_aux), > > > + "pcie_aux clock source missing or > > invalid\n"); > > > + imx6_pcie->apps_reset = > > devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, > > > + "apps"); > > > + if (IS_ERR(imx6_pcie->apps_reset)) { > > > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get PCIE APPS reset control\n"); > > > + return PTR_ERR(imx6_pcie->apps_reset); > > > + } > > > + > > > + imx6_pcie->phy = devm_phy_get(dev, "pcie-phy"); > > > + if (IS_ERR(imx6_pcie->phy)) { > > > + if (PTR_ERR(imx6_pcie->phy) == -EPROBE_DEFER) > > > + return -EPROBE_DEFER; > > > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get PCIE PHY\n"); > > > + return PTR_ERR(imx6_pcie->phy); > > > + } > > > > A question about handling of the -EPROBE_DEFER above: why not to use > > the > > dev_err_probe() helper similarly to the code above and below? Would > > there be something different preventing the use of dev_err_probe() here > > too? > [Richard Zhu] To be aligned, the above one can be replaced totally. > I didn't want to dump the error message when -EPROBE_DEFFER occurs. > Anyway, I can make them aligned later. Can you send me an update for this patch only so that I can update the corresponding commit according to this review please ? Thanks, Lorenzo > Best Regards > Richard > > > > > > break; > > > default: > > > break; > > > } > > > + /* Don't fetch the pcie_phy clock, if it has abstract PHY driver */ > > > + if (imx6_pcie->phy == NULL) { > > > + imx6_pcie->pcie_phy = devm_clk_get(dev, "pcie_phy"); > > > + if (IS_ERR(imx6_pcie->pcie_phy)) > > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, > > PTR_ERR(imx6_pcie->pcie_phy), > > > + "pcie_phy clock source missing or > > invalid\n"); > > > + } > > > > Thank you for another amazing patch! > > > > Krzysztof
