On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 09:51:22PM +0530, Ajay Agarwal wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 02:47:56PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 06:28:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 10:26:10AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >
> > > > Finally, note that the intel-gw driver is the only driver currently not
> > > > providing a start_link callback and instead starts the link in its
> > > > host_init callback, and which may avoid an additional one-second timeout
> > > > during probe by making the link-up wait conditional. If anyone cares,
> > > > that can be done in a follow-up patch with a proper motivation.
> >
> > > The offending commit is bogus since it makes the intel-gw _special_ w.r.t
> > > waiting for the link up. Most of the drivers call dw_pcie_host_init() during the
> > > probe time and they all have to wait for 1 sec if the slot is empty.
> Mani, can you please explain how my commit made the intel-gw driver
> special? The intel driver actually fails the dw_pcie_host_init if the
> link does not come up. That was my motivation behind adding the fail
> logic in the core driver as well.
> >
> > Just to clarify, the intel-gw driver starts the link and waits for link
> > up in its host_init() callback, which is called during probe. That wait
> > could possibly just be dropped in favour of the one in
> > dw_pcie_host_init() and/or the driver could be reworked to implement
> > start_link().
> >
> > Either way, the call in dw_pcie_host_init() will only add an additional
> > 1 second delay in cases where the link did *not* come up.
> >
> > > As Johan noted, intel-gw should make use of the async probe to avoid the boot
> > > delay instead of adding a special case.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > Johan
> Johan, Mani
> My apologies for adding this regression in some of the SOCs.
> May I suggest to keep my patch and make the following change instead?
> This shall keep the existing behavior as is, and save the boot time
> for drivers that do not define the start_link()?
>
> ```
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
> index cf61733bf78d..af6a7cd060b1 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
> @@ -492,11 +492,8 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct dw_pcie_rp *pp)
> if (ret)
> goto err_remove_edma;
>
> - if (pci->ops && pci->ops->start_link) {
> - ret = dw_pcie_wait_for_link(pci);
> - if (ret)
> - goto err_stop_link;
> - }
> + if (pci->ops && pci->ops->start_link)
> + dw_pcie_wait_for_link(pci);
> }
>
> bridge->sysdata = pp;
> ```
I just realized that Fabio pushed exactly the same patch as I suggested
here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230704122635.1362156-1-festevam@xxxxxxxxx/.
I think it is better we take it instead of reverting my commit.
