> On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 05:21:45PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > On Nov 07, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 08:39:43AM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 11:40:28PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 06:12:44PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > > > > > Introduce support for Airoha EN7581 PCIe controller to > > > > > > > > mediatek-gen3 PCIe controller driver. > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > Is this where PERST# is asserted? If so, a comment to > > > > > > > that effect would be helpful. Where is PERST# deasserted? > > > > > > > Where are the required delays before deassert done? > > > > > > > > > > > > I can add a comment in en7581_pci_enable() describing the > > > > > > PERST issue for EN7581. Please note we have a 250ms delay in > > > > > > en7581_pci_enable() after configuring REG_PCI_CONTROL register. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/clk/cl > > > > > > k-en7523.c#L396 > > > > > > > > > > Does that 250ms delay correspond to a PCIe mandatory delay, > > > > > e.g., something like PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS? I think it would be > > > > > nice to have the required PCI delays in this driver if > > > > > possible so it's easy to verify that they are all covered. > > > > > > > > IIRC I just used the delay value used in the vendor sdk. I do > > > > not have a strong opinion about it but I guess if we move it in > > > > the > > > > pcie-mediatek-gen3 driver, we will need to add it in each driver > > > > where this clock is used. What do you think? > > > > > > I don't know what the 250ms delay is for. If it is for a required > > > PCI delay, we should use the relevant standard #define for it, and > > > it should be in the PCI controller driver. Otherwise it's > > > impossible to verify that all the drivers are doing the correct delays. > > > > ack, fine to me. Do you prefer to keep 250ms after > > clk_bulk_prepare_enable() in mtk_pcie_en7581_power_up() or just use PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS (100)? > > I can check if 100ms works properly. > > It's not clear to me where the relevant events are for these chips. > > Do you have access to the PCIe CEM spec? The diagram in r6.0, sec > 2.2.1, is helpful. It shows the required timings for Power Stable, > REFCLK Stable, PERST# deassert, etc. > > Per sec 2.11.2, PERST# must be asserted for at least 100us (T_PERST), > PERST# must be asserted for at least 100ms after Power Stable > (T_PVPERL), and PERST# must be asserted for at least 100us after > REFCLK Stable. > > It would be helpful if we could tell by reading the source where some > of these critical events happen, and that the relevant delays are > there. For example, if PERST# is asserted/deasserted by > "clk_enable()" or similar, it's not at all obvious from the code, so > we should have a comment to that effect. >I reviewed the vendor sdk and it just do something like in clk_enable(): > > ... > val = readl(0x88); > writel(val | BIT(16) | BIT(29) | BIT(26), 0x88); > /*wait link up*/ > mdelay(1000); > ... > >@Hui.Ma: is it fine use msleep(100) (so PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS) instead of msleep(1000) (so PCIE_LINK_RETRAIN_TIMEOUT_MS)? Hi Lorenzo， I think msleep(1000) will be safer,because some device won't link up with msleep(100). Regards, Hui > >Regards, >Lorenzo > > Bjorn
