On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 11:08:29AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:09:06PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:52:19PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > "core_init_notifier" flag is set by the glue drivers requiring refclk from > > > the host to complete the DWC core initialization. Also, those drivers will > > > send a notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > > > completed using the pci_epc_init_notify() API. Only then, the EPF drivers > > > will start functioning. > > > > > > For the rest of the drivers generating refclk locally, EPF drivers will > > > start functioning post binding with them. EPF drivers rely on the > > > 'core_init_notifier' flag to differentiate between the drivers. > > > Unfortunately, this creates two different flows for the EPF drivers. > > > > > > So to avoid that, let's get rid of the "core_init_notifier" flag and follow > > > a single initialization flow for the EPF drivers. This is done by calling > > > the dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() from all glue drivers after the completion of > > > dw_pcie_ep_init_registers() API. This will allow all the glue drivers to > > > send the notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > > > completed. > > > > > > Only difference here is that, the drivers requiring refclk from host will > > > send the notification once refclk is received, while others will send it > > > during probe time itself. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@xxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > You have removed the .core_init_notifier from EPC drivers, > > but the callback in EPF drivers is still called .core_init. > > > > Yes, this was a confusing name even before this patch, but > > after this patch, it is probably even worse :) > > > > The callback should be named from the perspective of EPF drivers IMO. > > .core_init sounds like a EPF driver should initialize the core. > > (But that is of course done by the EPC driver.) > > > > The .link_up() callback name is better, the EPF driver is informed > > that the link is up. > > > > Perhaps we could rename .core_init to .core_up ? > > > > It tells the EPF drivers that the core is now up. > > (And the EPF driver can configure the BARs.) > > > > I don't disagree :) I thought about it but then decided to not extend the scope > of this series further. So saved that for next series. > > But yeah, it is good to clean it up here itself. If you intend to create a .core_deinit or .core_down (or whatever name you decide on), perhaps it is better to leave this cleanup to be part of that same series? Kind regards, Niklas
