On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 10:14:55PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:38:08AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 11:07:20AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 03:59:45PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 07:31:08PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > > qcom_pcie_enable_resources() is called by qcom_pcie_ep_probe() and it
> > > > > enables the controller resources like clocks, regulator, PHY. On one of the
> > > > > new unreleased Qcom SoC, PHY enablement depends on the active refclk. And
> > > > > on all of the supported Qcom endpoint SoCs, refclk comes from the host
> > > > > (RC). So calling qcom_pcie_enable_resources() without refclk causes the
> > > > > whole SoC crash on the new SoC.
> > > > >
> > > > > qcom_pcie_enable_resources() is already called by
> > > > > qcom_pcie_perst_deassert() when PERST# is deasserted, and refclk is
> > > > > available at that time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence, remove the unnecessary call to qcom_pcie_enable_resources() from
> > > > > qcom_pcie_ep_probe() to prevent the crash.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 869bc5253406 ("PCI: dwc: ep: Fix DBI access failure for drivers requiring refclk from host")
> > > > > Tested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Changed the patch description to mention the crash clearly as suggested by
> > > > > Bjorn
> > > >
> > > > Clearly mentioning the crash as rationale for the change is *part* of
> > > > what I was looking for.
> > > >
> > > > The rest, just as important, is information about what sort of crash
> > > > this is, because I hope and suspect the crash is recoverable, and we
> > > > *should* recover from it because PERST# may occur at arbitrary times,
> > > > so trying to avoid it is never going to be reliable.
> > >
> > > I did mention 'whole SoC crash' which typically means unrecoverable
> > > state as the SoC would crash (not just the driver). On Qcom SoCs,
> > > this will also lead the SoC to boot into EDL (Emergency Download)
> > > mode so that the users can collect dumps on the crash.
> >
> > IIUC we're talking about an access to a PHY register, and the access
> > requires Refclk from the host. I assume the SoC accesses the register
> > by doing an MMIO load. If nothing responds, I assume the SoC would
> > take a machine check or similar because there's no data to complete
> > the load instruction. So I assume again that the Linux on the SoC
> > doesn't know how to recover from such a machine check? If that's the
> > scenario, is the machine check unrecoverable in principle, or is it
> > potentially recoverable but nobody has done the work to do it? My
> > guess would be the latter, because the former would mean that it's
> > impossible to build a robust endpoint around this SoC. But obviously
> > this is all complete speculation on my part.
>
> Atleast on Qcom SoCs, doing a MMIO read without enabling the
> resources would result in a NoC (Network On Chip) error, which then
> end up as an exception to the Trustzone and Trustzone will finally
> convert it to a SoC crash so that the users could take a crash dump
> and do the analysis on why the crash has happened.
>
> I know that it may sound strange to developers coming from x86 world
> :)
It's only strange if the system design forces a crash for events that
happen in normal operation. Sounds like part of the problem here is
the non-SRIS mode that depends on Refclk from the host. That and the
fact that operating in non-SRIS mode has an unavoidable race where
PERST# from the host at the wrong time can crash the endpoint.
I think users of non-SRIS mode need to be aware of this issue, and
this patch to narrow the race window, but not close it completely, is
one good place to mention it.
> But this NoC error is something NVidia has also reported before, so
> I wouldn't assume that this is a Qcom specific issue but rather for
> SoCs depending on refclk from host.
Are there other drivers that need a similar band-aid?
> For building a robust endpoint, SoCs should generate refclk by
> themselves.
>
> - Mani
>
> -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
