On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 05:04:12PM GMT, Krishna chaitanya chundru wrote: > If the vendor drivers can detect the Link up event using mechanisms > such as Link up IRQ and can the driver can enumerate downstream devices > instead of waiting here, then waiting for Link up during probe is not > needed here, which optimizes the boot time. > > So skip waiting for link to be up if the driver supports 'linkup_irq'. > > Signed-off-by: Krishna chaitanya chundru <quic_krichai@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 10 ++++++++-- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > index 3e41865c7290..26418873ce14 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > @@ -530,8 +530,14 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct dw_pcie_rp *pp) > goto err_remove_edma; > } > > - /* Ignore errors, the link may come up later */ > - dw_pcie_wait_for_link(pci); > + /* > + * Note: The link up delay is skipped only when a link up IRQ is present. > + * This flag should not be used to bypass the link up delay for arbitrary > + * reasons. Perhaps by improving the naming of the variable, you don't need 3 lines of comment describing the conditional. > + */ > + if (!pp->linkup_irq) > + /* Ignore errors, the link may come up later */ Does this mean that we will be able to start handling these errors? > + dw_pcie_wait_for_link(pci); > > bridge->sysdata = pp; > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h > index 347ab74ac35a..539c6d106bb0 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h > @@ -379,6 +379,7 @@ struct dw_pcie_rp { > bool use_atu_msg; > int msg_atu_index; > struct resource *msg_res; > + bool linkup_irq; Please name this for what it is, rather than some property from which some other decision should be derived. (And then you need a comment to describe how people should interpret and use it) Also, "linkup_irq" sound like an int carrying the interrupt number, not a boolean. Please call it "use_async_linkup", "use_linkup_irq" or something. Regards, Bjorn > }; > > struct dw_pcie_ep_ops { > > -- > 2.34.1 > >