On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 11:45:12PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 23:32, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 01:23:30PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote: > > > IPQ8074 has one Gen2 and one Gen3 port, currently the Gen2 port will > > > cause the system to hang as its using DBI registers in the .init > > > and those are only accesible after phy_power_on(). > > > > Is the fact that IPQ8074 has both a Gen2 and a Gen3 port relevant to > > this patch? I don't see the connection. > > > > I see that qcom_pcie_host_init() does: > > > > qcom_pcie_host_init > > pcie->cfg->ops->init(pcie) > > phy_power_on(pcie->phy) > > pcie->cfg->ops->post_init(pcie) > > > > and that you're moving DBI register accesses from > > qcom_pcie_init_2_3_3() to qcom_pcie_post_init_2_3_3(). > > > > But I also see DBI register accesses in other .init() functions: > > > > qcom_pcie_init_2_1_0 > > qcom_pcie_init_1_0_0 (oddly out of order) > > qcom_pcie_init_2_3_2 > > qcom_pcie_init_2_4_0 > > > > Why do these accesses not need to be moved? I assume it's because > > pcie->phy is an optional PHY and phy_power_on() does nothing on those > > controllers? > > > > Whatever the reason, I think the DBI accesses should be done > > consistently in .post_init(). I see that Dmitry's previous patches > > removed all those .post_init() functions, but I think the consistency > > is worth having. > > > > Perhaps we could reorder the patches so this patch comes first, moves > > the DBI accesses into .post_init(), then Dmitry's patches could be > > rebased on top to drop the clock handling? > > I don't think there is a need to reorder patches. My patches do not > remove support for post_init(), they drop the callbacks code. Thus one > can reinstate necessary code back. There's not a *need* to reorder them, but I think it would make the patches smaller and more readable because we wouldn't be removing and then re-adding the functions.
