On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 18:48, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru
<quic_krichai@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/3/2024 12:07 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 04:17:06PM GMT, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/2/2024 3:42 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2 Sept 2024 at 11:32, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru
> >>> <quic_krichai@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/2/2024 12:50 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 2 Sept 2024 at 10:13, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru
> >>>>> <quic_krichai@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/8/2024 9:00 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>>>> On August 5, 2024 1:14:47 PM GMT+07:00, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <quic_krichai@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 5:04 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 03, 2024 at 08:52:54AM GMT, Krishna chaitanya chundru wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> QPS615 switch needs to be configured after powering on and before
> >>>>>>>>>> PCIe link was up.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As the PCIe controller driver already enables the PCIe link training
> >>>>>>>>>> at the host side, stop the link training. Otherwise the moment we turn
> >>>>>>>>>> on the switch it will participate in the link training and link may come
> >>>>>>>>>> up before switch is configured through i2c.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The device tree properties are parsed per node under pci-pci bridge in the
> >>>>>>>>>> driver. Each node has unique bdf value in the reg property, driver
> >>>>>>>>>> uses this bdf to differentiate ports, as there are certain i2c writes to
> >>>>>>>>>> select particular port.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Based up on dt property and port, qps615 is configured through i2c.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pwrctl/Kconfig | 7 +
> >>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pwrctl/Makefile | 1 +
> >>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pwrctl/pci-pwrctl-qps615.c | 638 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 646 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + return qps615_pwrctl_i2c_write(ctx->client,
> >>>>>>>>>> + is_l1 ? QPS615_PORT_L1_DELAY : QPS615_PORT_L0S_DELAY, units);
> >>>>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> +static int qps615_pwrctl_set_tx_amplitude(struct qps615_pwrctl_ctx *ctx,
> >>>>>>>>>> + enum qps615_pwrctl_ports port, u32 amp)
> >>>>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>>>> + int port_access;
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + switch (port) {
> >>>>>>>>>> + case QPS615_USP:
> >>>>>>>>>> + port_access = 0x1;
> >>>>>>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>>>>>> + case QPS615_DSP1:
> >>>>>>>>>> + port_access = 0x2;
> >>>>>>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>>>>>> + case QPS615_DSP2:
> >>>>>>>>>> + port_access = 0x8;
> >>>>>>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>>>>>> + default:
> >>>>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>>>>>>>> + };
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + struct qps615_pwrctl_reg_setting tx_amp_seq[] = {
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_PORT_ACCESS_ENABLE, port_access},
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hmm, this looks like another port selection, so most likely it should
> >>>>>>>>> also be under the same lock.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_PORT_LANE_ACCESS_ENABLE, 0x3},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_TX_MARGIN, amp},
> >>>>>>>>>> + };
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + return qps615_pwrctl_i2c_bulk_write(ctx->client, tx_amp_seq, ARRAY_SIZE(tx_amp_seq));
> >>>>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> +static int qps615_pwrctl_disable_dfe(struct qps615_pwrctl_ctx *ctx,
> >>>>>>>>>> + enum qps615_pwrctl_ports port)
> >>>>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>>>> + int port_access, lane_access = 0x3;
> >>>>>>>>>> + u32 phy_rate = 0x21;
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + switch (port) {
> >>>>>>>>>> + case QPS615_USP:
> >>>>>>>>>> + phy_rate = 0x1;
> >>>>>>>>>> + port_access = 0x1;
> >>>>>>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>>>>>> + case QPS615_DSP1:
> >>>>>>>>>> + port_access = 0x2;
> >>>>>>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>>>>>> + case QPS615_DSP2:
> >>>>>>>>>> + port_access = 0x8;
> >>>>>>>>>> + lane_access = 0x1;
> >>>>>>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>>>>>> + default:
> >>>>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>>>>>>>> + };
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + struct qps615_pwrctl_reg_setting disable_dfe_seq[] = {
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_PORT_ACCESS_ENABLE, port_access},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_PORT_LANE_ACCESS_ENABLE, lane_access},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_DFE_ENABLE, 0x0},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_DFE_EQ0_MODE, 0x411},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_DFE_EQ1_MODE, 0x11},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_DFE_EQ2_MODE, 0x11},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_DFE_PD_MASK, 0x7},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_PHY_RATE_CHANGE_OVERRIDE, 0x10},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_PHY_RATE_CHANGE, phy_rate},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_PHY_RATE_CHANGE, 0x0},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_PHY_RATE_CHANGE_OVERRIDE, 0x0},
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + };
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + return qps615_pwrctl_i2c_bulk_write(ctx->client,
> >>>>>>>>>> + disable_dfe_seq, ARRAY_SIZE(disable_dfe_seq));
> >>>>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> +static int qps615_pwrctl_set_nfts(struct qps615_pwrctl_ctx *ctx,
> >>>>>>>>>> + enum qps615_pwrctl_ports port, u32 nfts)
> >>>>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>>>>>>> + struct qps615_pwrctl_reg_setting nfts_seq[] = {
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_NFTS_2_5_GT, nfts},
> >>>>>>>>>> + {QPS615_NFTS_5_GT, nfts},
> >>>>>>>>>> + };
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + ret = qps615_pwrctl_i2c_write(ctx->client, QPS615_PORT_SELECT, BIT(port));
> >>>>>>>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>>>>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + return qps615_pwrctl_i2c_bulk_write(ctx->client, nfts_seq, ARRAY_SIZE(nfts_seq));
> >>>>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> +static int qps615_pwrctl_assert_deassert_reset(struct qps615_pwrctl_ctx *ctx, bool deassert)
> >>>>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>>>> + int ret, val = 0;
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + if (deassert)
> >>>>>>>>>> + val = 0xc;
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + ret = qps615_pwrctl_i2c_write(ctx->client, QPS615_GPIO_CONFIG, 0xfffffff3);
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It's a kind of magic
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I will add a macro in next patch.
> >>>>>>>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>>>>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + return qps615_pwrctl_i2c_write(ctx->client, QPS615_RESET_GPIO, val);
> >>>>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> +static int qps615_pwrctl_parse_device_dt(struct qps615_pwrctl_ctx *ctx, struct device_node *node)
> >>>>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>>>> + enum qps615_pwrctl_ports port;
> >>>>>>>>>> + struct qps615_pwrctl_cfg *cfg;
> >>>>>>>>>> + struct device_node *np;
> >>>>>>>>>> + int bdf, fun_no;
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + bdf = of_pci_get_bdf(node);
> >>>>>>>>>> + if (bdf < 0) {
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, it will fail if at any point BDF uses the most
> >>>>>>>>> significant bit (which is permitted by the spec, if I'm not mistaken).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As per the reg property as described in the binding document we are not
> >>>>>>>> expecting any change here.
> >>>>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10.3/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/pci.txt#L50.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What will this function return if the bus no is 256?
> >>>>>>> The supported PCI bus number is from 0x0 to 0xff only. so we
> >>>>>> are not expecting any numbers greater than 0xff.
> >>>>>>> Also please either move the function to the generic PCI code is change its name to match the rest of the driver. The of_pci_ prefix is reserved for the generic code.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> ack.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> + dev_err(ctx->pwrctl.dev, "Getting BDF failed\n");
> >>>>>>>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + fun_no = bdf & 0x7;
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I assume that ARI is not supported?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes this doesn't support ARI.
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + /* In multi function node, ignore function 1 node */
> >>>>>>>>>> + if (of_pci_get_bdf(of_get_parent(node)) == ctx->bdf->dsp3_bdf && !fun_no)
> >>>>>>>>>> + port = QPS615_ETHERNET;
> >>>>>>>>>> + else if (bdf == ctx->bdf->usp_bdf)
> >>>>>>>>>> + port = QPS615_USP;
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The function is being called for child device nodes. Thus upstream
> >>>>>>>>> facing port (I assume that this is what USP means) can not be enumerated
> >>>>>>>>> in this way.
> >>>>>>>> Sorry, but I didn't your question.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> These settings will not affect the enumeration sequence these are
> >>>>>>>> for configuring ports only.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are handling the case of bdf equal to the USP. Is it possible at all?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> at the time of the configuration the PCI link is not enabled yet,
> >>>>>> once we are done with the configurations only we are resumeing the link
> >>>>>> training. so when we start this configuration the link is not up yet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is your answer relevant to the question I have asked?
> >>>>>
> >>>> sorry dmitry I might got your question wrong. what I understood is
> >>>> "you are configuring USP port before the link is up, is that possible?"
> >>>> I might read your statement wrongly.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the question is "why do we need to configure USP?" I will try to
> >>>> respond below.
> >>>> "USP also will have l0s, L1 entry delays, nfts etc which can be
> >>>> configured".
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry once again if your question doesn't fall in both can you tell
> >>>> me your question.
> >>>
> >>> My question was why the function gets executed for the root port. But
> >>> after reading the qps615_pwrctl_parse_device_dt() I have another
> >>> question: you are parsing DT nodes recursively. You should stop
> >>> parsing at the first level, so that grandchildren nodes can not
> >>> override your data (and so that the time isn't spent on parsing
> >>> useless data). Also I have the feeling that BDF parsing isn't so
> >>> correct. Will it work if QPS is sitting behind a PCI-PCI bridge?
> >>>
> >> we are not executing for root port. we are configuring for USP
> >> since there are some features of USP which can be configured.
> >
> > What is USP? Upstream side port?
> >
> >>
> >> we are trying to store each configurations in below line.
> >> cfg = &ctx->cfg[port];
> >>
> >> port will have enum value based upon the bdf. after filling
> >> the parent node we calling recursive function for child nodes.
> >> As the BDF is unique value for each node we not expecting to get
> >> same enum value for child or grand child nodes and there will
> >> be no overwrite. If the BDF is not matched we are just returning
> >> instead of looking for the properties.
> >>
> >> QPS615 node is defined as child of the pci-pci bridge only.
> >> The pwrctl framework is designed to work if the device
> >> is represented as child node in the pci-pci bridge only.
> >
> > Of course. Each PCIe device is either a child of the root port or a
> > child of a pci-pci bridge. So are the BDFs specific to the case of
> > QPS615 being a child of the root PCIe bridge?
> >
> yes these are specific to qps615 being a child of the root PCIe bridge.
Then your approach doesn't scale. Please reimplement it in a way that
doesn't require knowing what is the actual topology of the bus. The
driver must work with no changes if you have another PCI-to-PCI bridge
between RC and QPS615.
> >>
> >> Hope it clarifies all the queries.
> >
> > Yes. Please drop recursive parsing and add explicit single
> > for_each_child_of_node().
> >
> Dimitry, the ethernet nodes which are child of dsp3 need extra
> for_each_child_of_node and also we are going to add support for cascade
> switch once this patch lands, in that cascade switch one more QPS615
> switch will be connected to the one of the downstream port of the first
> switch in that case we might need to do for_each_child_of_node twice
> from the dsp node where cascade switch is connected.
> So it will good if we have this recursive parsing.
Well, unless I miss something, your child bridge should be handled by
the driver for that bridge, not by the driver for the root bridge. So
recursive parsing should not be necessary.
>
> - Krishna Chaitanya.
> >
> >> - Krishna chaitanya.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> + else if (bdf == ctx->bdf->dsp1_bdf)
> >>>>>>>>>> + port = QPS615_DSP1;
> >>>>>>>>>> + else if (bdf == ctx->bdf->dsp2_bdf)
> >>>>>>>>>> + port = QPS615_DSP2;
> >>>>>>>>>> + else if (bdf == ctx->bdf->dsp3_bdf)
> >>>>>>>>>> + port = QPS615_DSP3;
> >>>>>>>>>> + else
> >>>>>>>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -EINVAL >
> >>>>>>>> There are can be nodes describing endpoints also,
> >>>>>>>> for those nodes bdf will not match and we are not
> >>>>>>>> returning since it is expected for endpoint nodes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which endpoints? Bindings don't describe them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The client drivers like ethernet will add them once
> >>>>>> this series is merged. Their drivers are not present
> >>>>>> in the linux as of now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The bindings describe the hardware, not the drivers. Also the driver
> >>>>> should work with the bindings that you have submitted, not some
> >>>>> imaginary to-be-submitted state. Please either update the bindings
> >>>>> within the patchset or fix the driver to return -EINVAL.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The qps615 bindings describes only the PCIe switch part,
> >>>> the endpoints binding connected to the switch should be described by the
> >>>> respective clients like USB hub, NVMe, ethernet etc bindings should
> >>>> describe their hardware and its properties. And these bindings will
> >>>> defined in seperate bindinds file not in qps615 bindings.
> >>>>
> >>>> for example:-
> >>>>
> >>>> in the following example pcie@0,0 describes usp and
> >>>> pcie@1,0 & pcie@2,0 describes dsp's of the switch.
> >>>> now if we say usb hub is connected to dsp1 i.e to the
> >>>> node pcie@1,0 there will be a child node to the pcie@1,0
> >>>> to denote usb hub hardware.
> >>>> And that node is external to the switch and we are not
> >>>> configuring it through i2c. As these are pcie devices
> >>>> representation is generic one we can't say if the client
> >>>> nodes(in this case usb hub) will be present or not. if the child
> >>>> node( for example usb hub) is present we can't return -EINVAL
> >>>> because qps615 will not configure it.
> >>>>
> >>>> &pcieport {
> >>>> pcie@0,0 {
> >>>> pcie@1,0 {
> >>>> reg = <0x20800 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
> >>>> #address-cells = <3>;
> >>>> #size-cells = <2>;
> >>>>
> >>>> device_type = "pci";
> >>>> ranges;
> >>>> usb_hub@0,0 {
> >>>> //describes USB hub
> >>>> };
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> pcie@2,0 {
> >>>> reg = <0x21000 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
> >>>> #address-cells = <3>;
> >>>> #size-cells = <2>;
> >>>>
> >>>> device_type = "pci";
> >>>> ranges;
> >>>> };
> >>>> };
> >>>> };
> >
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
