On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 10:55:29AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:15:54PM +0530, Ajay Agarwal wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 08:52:23AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > All mainline drivers already start the link before that > > > wait-for-link-up, so the commit in question makes very little sense. > > > That's why I prefer reverting it, so as to not pollute the git logs > > > (e.g. for git blame) with misleading justifications. > > > I am developing a PCIe driver which will not have the start_link > > callback defined. Instead, the link will be coming up much later based > > on some other trigger. So my driver will not attempt the LTSSM training > > on probe. So even if the probe is made asynchronous, it will still end > > up wasting 1 second of time. > > Yeah, I had the suspicion that this was really motivated by some > out-of-tree driver, which as I'm sure you know, is not a concern for > mainline. > > Vendor drivers do all sorts of crazy stuff and we don't carry code in > mainline for the sole benefit of such drivers that have not been > upstreamed (and likely never will be). > > So again, I think this patch should just be reverted. > > If you want to get something like this in, you can send a follow-on > patch describing your actual motivation and use case. But as it appears > to boil down to "I need this for my out-of-tree driver", I suspect such > a patch would still be rejected. > > Johan Johan, Mani, I submitted https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240111152517.1881382-1-ajayagarwal@xxxxxxxxxx/ which does not return an error value if the dw_pcie_wait_for_link fails in probe. Can you please check and provide your comments? Thanks Ajay
