On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 05:47:17PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Vidya, Jon since tegra194 does similar things]
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 05:52:45PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > Currently, the endpoint cleanup function dw_pcie_ep_cleanup() and EPF
> > deinit notify function pci_epc_deinit_notify() are called during the
> > execution of qcom_pcie_perst_assert() i.e., when the host has asserted
> > PERST#. But quickly after this step, refclk will also be disabled by the
> > host.
> >
> > All of the Qcom endpoint SoCs supported as of now depend on the refclk from
> > the host for keeping the controller operational. Due to this limitation,
> > any access to the hardware registers in the absence of refclk will result
> > in a whole endpoint crash. Unfortunately, most of the controller cleanups
> > require accessing the hardware registers (like eDMA cleanup performed in
> > dw_pcie_ep_cleanup(), powering down MHI EPF etc...). So these cleanup
> > functions are currently causing the crash in the endpoint SoC once host
> > asserts PERST#.
> >
> > One way to address this issue is by generating the refclk in the endpoint
> > itself and not depending on the host. But that is not always possible as
> > some of the endpoint designs do require the endpoint to consume refclk from
> > the host (as I was told by the Qcom engineers).
> >
> > So let's fix this crash by moving the controller cleanups to the start of
> > the qcom_pcie_perst_deassert() function. qcom_pcie_perst_deassert() is
> > called whenever the host has deasserted PERST# and it is guaranteed that
> > the refclk would be active at this point. So at the start of this function,
> > the controller cleanup can be performed. Once finished, rest of the code
> > execution for PERST# deassert can continue as usual.
>
> What makes this v6.11 material? Does it fix a problem we added in
> v6.11-rc1?
>
No, this is not a 6.11 material, but the rest of the patches I shared offline.
> Is there a Fixes: commit?
>
Hmm, the controller addition commit could be the valid fixes tag.
> This patch essentially does this:
>
> qcom_pcie_perst_assert
> - pci_epc_deinit_notify
> - dw_pcie_ep_cleanup
> qcom_pcie_disable_resources
>
> qcom_pcie_perst_deassert
> + if (pcie_ep->cleanup_pending)
> + pci_epc_deinit_notify(pci->ep.epc);
> + dw_pcie_ep_cleanup(&pci->ep);
> dw_pcie_ep_init_registers
> pci_epc_init_notify
>
> Maybe it makes sense to call both pci_epc_deinit_notify() and
> pci_epc_init_notify() from the PERST# deassert function, but it makes
> me question whether we really need both.
>
There is really no need to call pci_epc_deinit_notify() during the first
deassert (i.e., during the ep boot) because there are no cleanups to be done.
It is only needed during a successive PERST# assert + deassert.
> pcie-tegra194.c has a similar structure:
>
> pex_ep_event_pex_rst_assert
> pci_epc_deinit_notify
> dw_pcie_ep_cleanup
>
> pex_ep_event_pex_rst_deassert
> dw_pcie_ep_init_registers
> pci_epc_init_notify
>
> Is there a reason to make them different, or could/should a similar
> change be made to tegra?
>
Design wise both drivers are similar, so it could apply. I didn't spin a patch
because if testing of tegra driver gets delayed (I've seen this before), then I
do not want to stall merging the whole series. For Qcom it is important to get
this merged asap to avoid the crash.
> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c
> > index 2319ff2ae9f6..e024b4dcd76d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c
> > @@ -186,6 +186,8 @@ struct qcom_pcie_ep_cfg {
> > * @link_status: PCIe Link status
> > * @global_irq: Qualcomm PCIe specific Global IRQ
> > * @perst_irq: PERST# IRQ
> > + * @cleanup_pending: Cleanup is pending for the controller (because refclk is
> > + * needed for cleanup)
> > */
> > struct qcom_pcie_ep {
> > struct dw_pcie pci;
> > @@ -214,6 +216,7 @@ struct qcom_pcie_ep {
> > enum qcom_pcie_ep_link_status link_status;
> > int global_irq;
> > int perst_irq;
> > + bool cleanup_pending;
> > };
> >
> > static int qcom_pcie_ep_core_reset(struct qcom_pcie_ep *pcie_ep)
> > @@ -389,6 +392,12 @@ static int qcom_pcie_perst_deassert(struct dw_pcie *pci)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > + if (pcie_ep->cleanup_pending) {
>
> Do we really need this flag? I assume the cleanup functions could
> tell whether any previous setup was done?
>
Not so. Some cleanup functions may trigger a warning if attempted to do it
before 'setup'. I think dw_edma_remove() that is part of dw_pcie_ep_cleanup()
does that IIRC.
- Mani
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
