On 8/30/2021 9:23 AM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
Hi,
On 8/30/21 3:36 AM, nicolas saenz julienne wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
sorry for the late reply, I've been on vacation.
On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 02:15 -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
[...]
+static void __iomem *brcm_pcie_map_conf2(struct pci_bus *bus,
+ unsigned int devfn, int where)
+{
+ struct pci_config_window *cfg = bus->sysdata;
+ void __iomem *base = cfg->win;
+ int idx;
+ u32 up;
+
+ /* Accesses to the RC go right to the RC registers if slot==0 */
+ if (pci_is_root_bus(bus))
+ return PCI_SLOT(devfn) ? NULL : base + where;
+
+ /*
+ * Assure the link is up before sending requests downstream.
This is done
+ * to avoid sending transactions to EPs that don't exist. Link flap
+ * conditions/etc make this race more probable. The resulting
unrecoverable
+ * SERRORs will result in the machine crashing.
+ */
+ up = readl(base + PCIE_MISC_PCIE_STATUS);
+ if (!(up & PCIE_MISC_PCIE_STATUS_PCIE_DL_ACTIVE_MASK))
+ return NULL;
+
+ if (!(up & PCIE_MISC_PCIE_STATUS_PCIE_PHYLINKUP_MASK))
+ return NULL;
Couldn't this be integrated in the original brcm_pcie_map_conf()? IIUC
there is
nothing ACPI specific about it. It'd also make for less code duplication.
That is where I started with this, but it wasn't the linkup check/etc
which caused me to hoist it but the fact that if ACPI quirks are enabled
they end up statically built into the kernel. While if this host bridge
is enabled, it can end up being a module, and the resulting mess I
created trying to satisfy the CONFIG variations. I'm not much of a fan
of copy/paste programming, but that IMHO ended up being the cleanest here.
Agreed, the open coding that is being done is reasonable IHMO, although
we may have to update the link up code in both pcie-brcmstb.c and this
file in the future if offsets/bits do change, nothing impossible though.
--
Florian
