On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 09:25:57AM +0000, Hongxing Zhu wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: 2024年11月11日 14:09 > > To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Hongxing Zhu <hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx>; jingoohan1@xxxxxxxxx; > > bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx; kw@xxxxxxxxx; > > robh@xxxxxxxxxx; Frank Li <frank.li@xxxxxxx>; imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PCI: dwc: Clean up some unnecessary codes in > > dw_pcie_suspend_noirq() > > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 06:24:25PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 11:13:34AM +0000, Manivannan Sadhasivam > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 04:44:55PM +0800, Richard Zhu wrote: > > > > > Before sending PME_TURN_OFF, don't test the LTSSM stat. Since it's > > > > > safe to send PME_TURN_OFF message regardless of whether the link > > > > > is up or down. So, there would be no need to test the LTSSM stat > > > > > before sending PME_TURN_OFF message. > > > > > > > > What is the incentive to send PME_Turn_Off when link is not up? > > > > > > There's no need to send PME_Turn_Off when link is not up. > > > > > > But a link-up check is inherently racy because the link may go down > > > between the check and the PME_Turn_Off. Since it's impossible for > > > software to guarantee the link is up, the Root Port should be able to > > > tolerate attempts to send PME_Turn_Off when the link is down. > > > > > > So IMO there's no need to check whether the link is up, and checking > > > gives the misleading impression that "we know the link is up and > > > therefore sending PME_Turn_Off is safe." > > > > > > > I agree that the check is racy (not sure if there is a better way to avoid that), > > but if you send the PME_Turn_Off unconditionally, then it will result in > > L23 Ready timeout and users will see the error message. > > > I understand Manivannan' s concerns. > When check the link is up or not before dumping error message, > there is another check racy. Right. > How about to replace the dev_err() by dev_info(), and no error return? > Whatever the timeout is caused by no EP connected or something else. Just > inform user the real stat it is. > But users don't want the timeout message if no EP is connected, that's my point. - Mani > Best Regards > Richard Zhu > > > > > > Remove the L2 poll too, after the PME_TURN_OFF message is sent > > > > > out. Because the re-initialization would be done in > > > > > dw_pcie_resume_noirq(). > > > > > > > > As Krishna explained, host needs to wait until the endpoint acks the > > > > message (just to give it some time to do cleanups). Then only the > > > > host can initiate D3Cold. It matters when the device supports L2. > > > > > > The important thing here is to be clear about the *reason* to poll for > > > L2 and the *event* that must wait for L2. > > > > > > I don't have any DesignWare specs, but when dw_pcie_suspend_noirq() > > > waits for DW_PCIE_LTSSM_L2_IDLE, I think what we're doing is waiting > > > for the link to be in the L2/L3 Ready pseudo-state (PCIe r6.0, sec > > > 5.2, fig 5-1). > > > > > > L2 and L3 are states where main power to the downstream component is > > > off, i.e., the component is in D3cold (r6.0, sec 5.3.2), so there is > > > no link in those states. > > > > > > The PME_Turn_Off handshake is part of the process to put the > > > downstream component in D3cold. I think the reason for this handshake > > > is to allow an orderly shutdown of that component before main power is > > > removed. > > > > > > When the downstream component receives PME_Turn_Off, it will stop > > > scheduling new TLPs, but it may already have TLPs scheduled but not > > > yet sent. If power were removed immediately, they would be lost. My > > > understanding is that the link will not enter L2/L3 Ready until the > > > components on both ends have completed whatever needs to be done with > > > those TLPs. (This is based on the L2/L3 discussion in the Mindshare > > > PCIe book; I haven't found clear spec citations for all of it.) > > > > > > I think waiting for L2/L3 Ready is to keep us from turning off main > > > power when the components are still trying to dispose of those TLPs. > > > > > > > Not just disposing TLPs as per the spec, most endpoints also need to reset > > their state machine as well (if there is a way for the endpoint sw to delay > > sending > > L23 Ready). > > > > > So I think every controller that turns off main power needs to wait > > > for L2/L3 Ready. > > > > > > There's also a requirement that software wait at least 100 ns after > > > L2/L3 Ready before turning off refclock and main power (sec > > > 5.3.3.2.1). > > > > > > > Right. Usually, the delay after PERST# assert would make sure this, but in > > layerscape driver (user of dw_pcie_suspend_noirq) I don't see power/refclk > > removal. > > > > Richard Zhu/Frank, thoughts? > > > > - Mani > > > > -- > > மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம் -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
