> On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 01:23:35AM +0000, Hui Ma (马慧) wrote: > > > 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/cl > > > > > > > > k/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)? > > > > I think msleep(1000) will be safer, because some device won't > > link up with msleep(100). >> >> Do you have details about this? I guess it only hurts mediatek, but >> increasing the minimum time to bring up a PCI hierarchy by almost an >> entire second is a pretty big deal. >> >> If this delay corresponds to the required T_PVPERL delay and 100ms >> isn't enough for some endpoints, those endpoints should fail with many >> host controllers, not just mediatek, so I would suspect the mediatek >> controller or a certain platform, not the endpoint itself. >> >> If this corresponds to T_PVPERL and mediatek needs longer, I would >> document that by using "PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS * 10" and adding a comment >> about why (affected platform/device, hardware erratum, etc). >> >> Bottom line, I don't really care what the value is, but I *would* like >> to be able to read pcie-mediatek-gen3.c and see the point where PCI >> power is stable, a delay of at least T_PVPERL, and where PERST# is >> deasserted because that's the main timing requirement on software. >>I run some testes using 100ms delay (PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS) after >>clk_bulk_prepare_enable() in mtk_pcie_en7581_power_up() and it works fine for me (I tested with a MT7915 WiFi PCIe nic connected to the PCIe sock). >>Moreover, we already poll PCIE_LINK_STATUS_REG register to check the link status in mtk_pcie_startup_port(), right? I guess we can proceed with 100ms delay in mtk_pcie_en7581_power_up(). Yes. Hi Lorenzo/Bjorn， After our internal discussion and tests, we confirmed that a 100ms delay is enough. Regards, Hui >Regards, >Lorenzo > > Bjorn
