> On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 01:23:35AM +0000, Hui Ma (马慧) wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 05:21:45PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > On Nov 07, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 08:39:43AM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 11:40:28PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 06:12:44PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Introduce support for Airoha EN7581 PCIe controller to > > > > > > > > > > mediatek-gen3 PCIe controller driver. > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this where PERST# is asserted? If so, a comment to > > > > > > > > > that effect would be helpful. Where is PERST# deasserted? > > > > > > > > > Where are the required delays before deassert done? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can add a comment in en7581_pci_enable() describing the > > > > > > > > PERST issue for EN7581. Please note we have a 250ms delay in > > > > > > > > en7581_pci_enable() after configuring REG_PCI_CONTROL register. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/clk/cl > > > > > > > > k-en7523.c#L396 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that 250ms delay correspond to a PCIe mandatory delay, > > > > > > > e.g., something like PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS? I think it would be > > > > > > > nice to have the required PCI delays in this driver if > > > > > > > possible so it's easy to verify that they are all covered. > > > > > > > > > > > > IIRC I just used the delay value used in the vendor sdk. I > > > > > > do not have a strong opinion about it but I guess if we move > > > > > > it in the pcie-mediatek-gen3 driver, we will need to add it > > > > > > in each driver where this clock is used. What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what the 250ms delay is for. If it is for a required > > > > > PCI delay, we should use the relevant standard #define for it, and > > > > > it should be in the PCI controller driver. Otherwise it's > > > > > impossible to verify that all the drivers are doing the correct delays. > > > > > > > > ack, fine to me. Do you prefer to keep 250ms after > > > > clk_bulk_prepare_enable() in mtk_pcie_en7581_power_up() or just use PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS (100)? > > > > I can check if 100ms works properly. > > > > > > It's not clear to me where the relevant events are for these chips. > > > > > > Do you have access to the PCIe CEM spec? The diagram in r6.0, sec > > > 2.2.1, is helpful. It shows the required timings for Power Stable, > > > REFCLK Stable, PERST# deassert, etc. > > > > > > Per sec 2.11.2, PERST# must be asserted for at least 100us (T_PERST), > > > PERST# must be asserted for at least 100ms after Power Stable > > > (T_PVPERL), and PERST# must be asserted for at least 100us after > > > REFCLK Stable. > > > > > > It would be helpful if we could tell by reading the source where some > > > of these critical events happen, and that the relevant delays are > > > there. For example, if PERST# is asserted/deasserted by > > > "clk_enable()" or similar, it's not at all obvious from the code, so > > > we should have a comment to that effect. > > > > >I reviewed the vendor sdk and it just do something like in clk_enable(): > > > > > > ... > > > val = readl(0x88); > > > writel(val | BIT(16) | BIT(29) | BIT(26), 0x88); > > > /*wait link up*/ > > > mdelay(1000); > > > ... > > > > > >@Hui.Ma: is it fine use msleep(100) (so PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS) instead > > >of msleep(1000) (so PCIE_LINK_RETRAIN_TIMEOUT_MS)? > > > > I think msleep(1000) will be safer, because some device won't > > link up with msleep(100). > > Do you have details about this? I guess it only hurts mediatek, but > increasing the minimum time to bring up a PCI hierarchy by almost an > entire second is a pretty big deal. > > If this delay corresponds to the required T_PVPERL delay and 100ms > isn't enough for some endpoints, those endpoints should fail with many > host controllers, not just mediatek, so I would suspect the mediatek > controller or a certain platform, not the endpoint itself. > > If this corresponds to T_PVPERL and mediatek needs longer, I would > document that by using "PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS * 10" and adding a comment > about why (affected platform/device, hardware erratum, etc). > > Bottom line, I don't really care what the value is, but I *would* like > to be able to read pcie-mediatek-gen3.c and see the point where PCI > power is stable, a delay of at least T_PVPERL, and where PERST# is > deasserted because that's the main timing requirement on software. I run some testes using 100ms delay (PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS) after clk_bulk_prepare_enable() in mtk_pcie_en7581_power_up() and it works fine for me (I tested with a MT7915 WiFi PCIe nic connected to the PCIe sock). Moreover, we already poll PCIE_LINK_STATUS_REG register to check the link status in mtk_pcie_startup_port(), right? I guess we can proceed with 100ms delay in mtk_pcie_en7581_power_up(). Regards, Lorenzo > > Bjorn
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
