On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 03:24:36PM +0200, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 06:05:02PM -0500, Sajid Dalvi wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:36 PM Sajid Dalvi <sdalvi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for your review Jingoo. > > > Sajid > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:04 PM Han Jingoo <jingoohan1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023, Sajid Dalvi <sdalvi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In dw_pcie_host_init() regardless of whether the link has been started > > > > > or not, the code waits for the link to come up. Even in cases where > > > > > start_link() is not defined the code ends up spinning in a loop for 1 > > > > > second. Since in some systems dw_pcie_host_init() gets called during > > > > > probe, this one second loop for each pcie interface instance ends up > > > > > extending the boot time. > > > > > > > > > > Call trace when start_link() is not defined: > > > > > dw_pcie_wait_for_link << spins in a loop for 1 second > > > > > dw_pcie_host_init > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sajid Dalvi <sdalvi@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > (CC'ed Krzysztof Kozlowski) > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > It looks good to me. I also checked the previous thread. > > > > I agree with Krzysztof's opinion that we should include > > > > only hardware-related features into DT. > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jingoo Han > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 6 +++--- > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > > > > > index 9952057c8819..9709f69f173e 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > > > > > @@ -489,10 +489,10 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct dw_pcie_rp *pp) > > > > > ret = dw_pcie_start_link(pci); > > > > > if (ret) > > > > > goto err_remove_edma; > > > > > - } > > > > > > > > > > - /* Ignore errors, the link may come up later */ > > > > > - dw_pcie_wait_for_link(pci); > > > > > + /* Ignore errors, the link may come up later */ > > > > > + dw_pcie_wait_for_link(pci); > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > bridge->sysdata = pp; > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.39.2.722.g9855ee24e9-goog > > > > > > > > > @bhelgaas Can this be picked up in your tree: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git/ > > This patch seems fine to me. The question I have though is why the > *current* code is written the way it is. Perhaps it is just the way > it is, I wonder whether this change can trigger a regression though. The new code will look basically like this: if (!dw_pcie_link_up(pci)) { dw_pcie_start_link(pci); dw_pcie_wait_for_link(pci); } If the link is already up by the time we get here, this change means we won't get this message emitted by dw_pcie_wait_for_link(): dev_info(pci->dev, "PCIe Gen.%u x%u link up\n", ...) I don't know how important that is, but I bet somebody cares about it. >From the commit log, I expected the patch to do something based on whether ->start_link() was defined, but there really isn't a direct connection, so maybe the log could be refined. Bjorn
