On Friday 25 February 2022 09:51:56 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 01:30:51PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 February 2022 14:47:15 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 05:31:56PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > Add function of_pci_get_slot_power_limit(), which parses the
> > > > 'slot-power-limit-milliwatt' DT property, returning the value in
> > > > milliwatts and in format ready for the PCIe Slot Capabilities Register.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Behún <kabel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/pci/of.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > drivers/pci/pci.h | 15 +++++++++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 79 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/of.c b/drivers/pci/of.c
> > > > index cb2e8351c2cc..2b0c0a3641a8 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pci/of.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/of.c
> > > > @@ -633,3 +633,67 @@ int of_pci_get_max_link_speed(struct device_node *node)
> > > > return max_link_speed;
> > > > }
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_max_link_speed);
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * of_pci_get_slot_power_limit - Parses the "slot-power-limit-milliwatt"
> > > > + * property.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @node: device tree node with the slot power limit information
> > > > + * @slot_power_limit_value: pointer where the value should be stored in PCIe
> > > > + * Slot Capabilities Register format
> > > > + * @slot_power_limit_scale: pointer where the scale should be stored in PCIe
> > > > + * Slot Capabilities Register format
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Returns the slot power limit in milliwatts and if @slot_power_limit_value
> > > > + * and @slot_power_limit_scale pointers are non-NULL, fills in the value and
> > > > + * scale in format used by PCIe Slot Capabilities Register.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * If the property is not found or is invalid, returns 0.
> > > > + */
> > > > +u32 of_pci_get_slot_power_limit(struct device_node *node,
> > > > + u8 *slot_power_limit_value,
> > > > + u8 *slot_power_limit_scale)
> > > > +{
> > > > + u32 slot_power_limit;
> > >
> > > Including "mw" or similar reference to the units would give a hint of
> > > how to relate the code to the spec.
> > >
> > > > + u8 value, scale;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (of_property_read_u32(node, "slot-power-limit-milliwatt",
> > > > + &slot_power_limit))
> > > > + slot_power_limit = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Calculate Slot Power Limit Value and Slot Power Limit Scale */
> > >
> > > Add a spec reference to PCIe r6.0, sec 7.5.3.9. IIUC, this supports
> > > up to 300W, which was what r5.0 defined, but r6.0 added values up to
> > > 0xfe (600W).
> >
> > I did not know about it and I have not seen/read r6.0.
> >
> > It would be nice if somebody with access to r6.0 send a patch to lspci
> > utility, so we could write support for 600W based on lspci parser.
>
> Of course, sorry! Obviously you would have implemented them all if
> you had the spec!
>
> Here's the info from r6.0, sec 7.5.3.9:
>
> Slot Power Limit Value - In combination with the Slot Power Limit
> Scale value, specifies the upper limit on power supplied by the slot
> (see § Section 6.9) or by other means to the adapter.
>
> Power limit (in Watts) is calculated by multiplying the value in
> this field by the value in the Slot Power Limit Scale field except
> when the Slot Power Limit Scale field equals 00b (1.0x) and Slot
> Power Limit Value exceeds EFh, the following alternative encodings
> are used:
>
> F0h > 239 W and ≤ 250 W Slot Power Limit
> F1h > 250 W and ≤ 275 W Slot Power Limit
> F2h > 275 W and ≤ 300 W Slot Power Limit
> F3h > 300 W and ≤ 325 W Slot Power Limit
> F4h > 325 W and ≤ 350 W Slot Power Limit
> F5h > 350 W and ≤ 375 W Slot Power Limit
> F6h > 375 W and ≤ 400 W Slot Power Limit
> F7h > 400 W and ≤ 425 W Slot Power Limit
> F8h > 425 W and ≤ 450 W Slot Power Limit
> F9h > 450 W and ≤ 475 W Slot Power Limit
> FAh > 475 W and ≤ 500 W Slot Power Limit
> FBh > 500 W and ≤ 525 W Slot Power Limit
> FCh > 525 W and ≤ 550 W Slot Power Limit
> FDh > 550 W and ≤ 575 W Slot Power Limit
> FEh > 575 W and ≤ 600 W Slot Power Limit
> FFh Reserved for Slot Power Limit Values above 600 W
>
> This register must be implemented if the Slot Implemented bit is Set.
>
> Writes to this register also cause the Port to send the
> Set_Slot_Power_Limit Message.
Ok, thank you!
I will send also update for lspci.
> > > > + if (slot_power_limit == 0) {
> > > > + value = 0x00;
> > > > + scale = 0;
> > > > + } else if (slot_power_limit <= 255) {
> > > > + value = slot_power_limit;
> > > > + scale = 3;
> > > > + } else if (slot_power_limit <= 255*10) {
> > > > + value = slot_power_limit / 10;
> > > > + scale = 2;
> > > > + } else if (slot_power_limit <= 255*100) {
> > > > + value = slot_power_limit / 100;
> > > > + scale = 1;
> > > > + } else if (slot_power_limit <= 239*1000) {
> > > > + value = slot_power_limit / 1000;
> > > > + scale = 0;
> > > > + } else if (slot_power_limit <= 250*1000) {
> > > > + value = 0xF0;
> > > > + scale = 0;
> > > > + } else if (slot_power_limit <= 275*1000) {
> > > > + value = 0xF1;
> > > > + scale = 0;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + value = 0xF2;
> > > > + scale = 0;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (slot_power_limit_value)
> > > > + *slot_power_limit_value = value;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (slot_power_limit_scale)
> > > > + *slot_power_limit_scale = scale;
> > > > +
> > > > + return slot_power_limit;
> > >
> > > If "slot-power-limit-milliwatt" contains a value larger than can be
> > > represented in "value" and "scale", the return value will not agree
> > > with value/scale, will it?
> >
> > In previous version 0xF2 was reserved for values above 275 W. So for me
> > it looked like a correct solution.
> >
> > > Currently you only use the return value for a log message, so no real
> > > harm yet, other than the fact that we might print "Slot power limit
> > > 1000.0W" when the hardware will only advertise 600W available.
> > >
> > > Also, if "slot-power-limit-milliwatt" contains something like
> > > 260000 mW (260 W), we'll return 0xF1/0, so the hardware will
> > > advertise 275 W available.
> >
> > There is no way how to encode 260 W. It is possible only 250 W or 275 W,
> > and nothing between. I chose to round value to upper limit. What do you
> > prefer in these cases? Upper or lower limit?
>
> I think rounding down is better. If we round up, the slot will
> advertise more power than it can deliver, and if the device tries to
> consume the amount of power advertised, it may not work reliably.
>
> So I think we should return encoded values that are no higher than
> what the slot can actually deliver, and the return value should match
> what Slot Capabilities advertises.
>
> Bjorn
It makes sense.
