On 2023/8/1 7:12, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Pali, Marek because I used f76b36d40bee ("PCI: aardvark: Fix link
> training") as an example]
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 01:52:35PM +0800, Kevin Xie wrote:
>> On 2023/7/28 5:40, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 03:46:35PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 06:48:47PM +0800, Kevin Xie wrote:
>> >> > On 2023/7/21 0:15, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> >> > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 06:11:59PM +0800, Kevin Xie wrote:
>> >> > >> On 2023/7/20 0:48, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 06:20:56PM +0800, Minda Chen wrote:
>> >> > >> >> Add StarFive JH7110 SoC PCIe controller platform
>> >> > >> >> driver codes.
>> >>
>> >> > >> However, in the compatibility testing with several NVMe SSD, we
>> >> > >> found that Lenovo Thinklife ST8000 NVMe can not get ready in 100ms,
>> >> > >> and it actually needs almost 200ms. Thus, we increased the T_PVPERL
>> >> > >> value to 300ms for the better device compatibility.
>> >> > > ...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks for this valuable information! This NVMe issue potentially
>> >> > > affects many similar drivers, and we may need a more generic fix so
>> >> > > this device works well with all of them.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > T_PVPERL is defined to start when power is stable. Do you have a way
>> >> > > to accurately determine that point? I'm guessing this:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pcie->power_gpio, 1)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > turns the power on? But of course that doesn't mean it is instantly
>> >> > > stable. Maybe your testing is telling you that your driver should
>> >> > > have a hardware-specific 200ms delay to wait for power to become
>> >> > > stable, followed by the standard 100ms for T_PVPERL?
>> >> >
>> >> > You are right, we did not take the power stable cost into account.
>> >> > T_PVPERL is enough for Lenovo Thinklife ST8000 NVMe SSD to get ready,
>> >> > and the extra cost is from the power circuit of a PCIe to M.2 connector,
>> >> > which is used to verify M.2 SSD with our EVB at early stage.
>> >>
>> >> Hmm. That sounds potentially interesting. I assume you're talking
>> >> about something like this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07JKH5VTL
>> >>
>> >> I'm not familiar with the timing requirements for something like this.
>> >> There is a PCIe M.2 spec with some timing requirements, but I don't
>> >> know whether or how software is supposed to manage this. There is a
>> >> T_PVPGL (power valid to PERST# inactive) parameter, but it's
>> >> implementation specific, so I don't know what the point of that is.
>> >> And I don't see a way for software to even detect the presence of such
>> >> an adapter.
>> >
>> > I intended to ask about this on the PCI-SIG forum, but after reading
>> > this thread [1], I don't think we would learn anything. The question
>> > was:
>> >
>> > The M.2 device has 5 voltage rails generated from the 3.3V input
>> > supply voltage
>> > -------------------------------------------
>> > This is re. Table 17 in PCI Express M.2 Specification Revision 1.1
>> > Power Valid* to PERST# input inactive : Implementation specific;
>> > recommended 50 ms
>> >
>> > What exactly does this mean ?
>> >
>> > The Note says
>> >
>> > *Power Valid when all the voltage supply rails have reached their
>> > respective Vmin.
>> >
>> > Does this mean that the 50ms to PERSTn is counted from the instant
>> > when all *5 voltage rails* on the M.2 device have become "good" ?
>> >
>> > and the answer was:
>> >
>> > You wrote;
>> > Does this mean that the 50ms to PERSTn is counted from the instant
>> > when all 5 voltage rails on the M.2 device have become "good" ?
>> >
>> > Reply:
>> > This means that counting the recommended 50 ms begins from the time
>> > when the power rails coming to the device/module, from the host, are
>> > stable *at the device connector*.
>> >
>> > As for the time it takes voltages derived inside the device from any
>> > of the host power rails (e.g., 3.3V rail) to become stable, that is
>> > part of the 50ms the host should wait before de-asserting PERST#, in
>> > order ensure that most devices will be ready by then.
>> >
>> > Strictly speaking, nothing disastrous happens if a host violates the
>> > 50ms. If it de-asserts too soon, the device may not be ready, but
>> > most hosts will try again. If the host de-asserts too late, the
>> > device has even more time to stabilize. This is why the WG felt that
>> > an exact minimum number for >>Tpvpgl, was not valid in practice, and
>> > we made it a recommendation.
>> >
>> > Since T_PVPGL is implementation-specific, we can't really base
>> > anything in software on the 50ms recommendation. It sounds to me like
>> > they are counting on software to retry config reads when enumerating.
>> >
>> > I guess the delays we *can* observe are:
>> >
>> > 100ms T_PVPERL "Power stable to PERST# inactive" (CEM 2.9.2)
>> > 100ms software delay between reset and config request (Base 6.6.1)
>>
>> Refer to Figure2-10 in CEM Spec V2.0, I guess this two delays are T2 & T4?
>> In the PATCH v2[4/4], T2 is the msleep(100) for T_PVPERL,
>> and T4 is done by starfive_pcie_host_wait_for_link().
>
> Yes, I think "T2" is T_PVPERL. The CEM r2.0 Figure 2-10 note is
> "2. Minimum time from power rails within specified tolerance to
> PERST# inactive (T_PVPERL)."
>
> As far as T4 ("Minimum PERST# inactive to PCI Express link out of
> electrical idle"), I don't see a name or a value for that parameter,
> and I don't think it is the delay required by PCIe r6.0, sec 6.6.1.
>
> The delay required by sec 6.6.1 is a minimum of 100ms following exit
> from reset or, for fast links, 100ms after link training completes.
>
> The comment at the call of advk_pcie_wait_for_link() [2] says it is
> the delay required by sec 6.6.1, but that doesn't seem right to me.
>
> For one thing, I don't think 6.6.1 says anything about "link up" being
> the end of a delay. So if we want to do the delay required by 6.6.1,
> "wait_for_link()" doesn't seem like quite the right name.
>
> For another, all the *_wait_for_link() functions can return success
> after 0ms, 90ms, 180ms, etc. They're unlikely to return after 0ms,
> but 90ms is quite possible. If we avoided the 0ms return and
> LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN were 100ms instead of 90ms, that should be enough
> for slow links, where we need 100ms following "exit from reset."
>
> But it's still not enough for fast links where we need 100ms "after
> link training completes" because we don't know when training
> completed. If training completed 89ms into *_wait_for_link(), we only
> delay 1ms after that.
>
That's the point, we will add a extra 100ms after PERST# de-assert
in the patch-v3 according to Base Spec r6.0 - 6.6.1:
msleep(100);
gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pcie->reset_gpio, 0);
+ /* As the requirement in PCIe base spec r6.0, system must wait a
+ * minimum of 100 ms following exit from a Conventional Reset
+ * before sending a Configuration Request to the device.*/
+ msleep(100);
+
if (starfive_pcie_host_wait_for_link(pcie))
return -EIO;
>> > The PCI core doesn't know how to assert PERST#, so the T_PVPERL delay
>> > definitely has to be in the host controller driver.
>> >
>> > The PCI core observes the second 100ms delay after a reset in
>> > pci_bridge_wait_for_secondary_bus(). But this 100ms delay does not
>> > happen during initial enumeration. I think the assumption of the PCI
>> > core is that when the host controller driver calls pci_host_probe(),
>> > we can issue config requests immediately.
>> >
>> > So I think that to be safe, we probably need to do both of those 100ms
>> > delays in the host controller driver. Maybe there's some hope of
>> > supporting the latter one in the PCI core someday, but that's not
>> > today.
>> >
>> > Bjorn
>> >
>> > [1] https://forum.pcisig.com/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=1037
>
> [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c?id=v6.4#n433
