On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 01:14:29PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 05:08:22PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 08:53:40PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > All EP specific resources are enabled during PERST# deassert. As a counter
> > > operation, all resources should be disabled during PERST# assert. There is
> > > no point in skipping that if the link was not enabled.
> > >
> > > This will also result in enablement of the resources twice if PERST# got
> > > deasserted again. So remove the check from qcom_pcie_perst_assert() and
> > > disable all the resources unconditionally.
> > >
> > > Fixes: f55fee56a631 ("PCI: qcom-ep: Add Qualcomm PCIe Endpoint controller driver")
> > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c | 6 ------
> > > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c
> > > index 2fb8c15e7a91..50b1635e3cbb 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c
> > > @@ -500,12 +500,6 @@ static int qcom_pcie_perst_deassert(struct dw_pcie *pci)
> > > static void qcom_pcie_perst_assert(struct dw_pcie *pci)
> > > {
> > > struct qcom_pcie_ep *pcie_ep = to_pcie_ep(pci);
> > > - struct device *dev = pci->dev;
> > > -
> > > - if (pcie_ep->link_status == QCOM_PCIE_EP_LINK_DISABLED) {
> > > - dev_dbg(dev, "Link is already disabled\n");
> > > - return;
> > > - }
> > >
> > > dw_pcie_ep_cleanup(&pci->ep);
> > > qcom_pcie_disable_resources(pcie_ep);
> >
> > Are you really sure that this is safe?
> >
> > I think I remember seeing some splat in dmesg if some clks, or maybe it
> > was regulators, got disabled while already being disabled.
> >
> > Perhaps you could test it by simply calling:
> > qcom_pcie_disable_resources();
> > twice here, and see if you see and splat in dmesg.
> >
>
> Calling the disable_resources() function twice will definitely result in the
> splat. But here PERST# is level triggered, so I don't see how the EP can see
> assert twice.
>
> Am I missing something?
I think I remember now, I was developing a driver using a .core_init_notifier,
but I followed the pcie-tegra model, which does not enable any resources in
probe() (it only gets them), so I got the splat because when PERST got
asserted, resources would get disabled even though they were already disabled.
pcie-qcom:
-gets resources in .probe()
-enables resources in .probe()
-sets no default state in .probe()
pcie-tegra:
-gets resources in .probe()
-enables resources in perst_deassert()
-sets default state to EP_STATE_DISABLED in probe()
So pcie-qcom does not seem to be following the same pattern like pcie-tegra,
because pcie-qcom actually does enable resources for the first time in
probe(), while tegra will enable resources for the first time in
perst_deassert().
Sorry for the noise.
Kind regards,
Niklas
