Hi,
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:09:46AM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
> 在 2016/6/23 8:29, Brian Norris 写道:
> >On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:50:35AM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
[...]
> >>+ /* 500ms timeout value should be enough for gen1/2 taining */
> >>+ timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(500);
> >>+
> >>+ err = -ETIMEDOUT;
> >>+ while (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) {
> >>+ status = pcie_read(port, PCIE_CLIENT_BASIC_STATUS1);
> >>+ if (((status >> PCIE_CLIENT_LINK_STATUS_SHIFT) &
> >>+ PCIE_CLIENT_LINK_STATUS_MASK) ==
> >>+ PCIE_CLIENT_LINK_STATUS_UP) {
> >>+ dev_dbg(port->dev, "pcie link training gen1 pass!\n");
> >>+ err = 0;
> >>+ break;
> >>+ }
> >>+ msleep(20);
> >>+ }
> >
> >Technically, the above timeout loop is not quite correct. Possible error
> >case: we can fail with a timeout after 500 ms if the training completes
> >between the 480-500 ms time window. This can happen because you're
> >doing:
> >
> >(1) read register: if complete, then terminate successfully
> >(2) delay
> >(3) check for timeout: if time is up, return error
> >
> >You actually need:
> >
> >(1) read register: if complete, then terminate successfully
> >(2) delay
> >(3) check for timeout: if time is up, repeat (1), and then report error
> >
> >You can examine the logic for readx_poll_timeout() in
> >include/linux/iopoll.h to see an example of a proper timeout loop. You
> >could even try to use one of the helpers there, except that your
> >pcie_read() takes 2 args.
>
> I see, thanks.
>
> >
> >>+ if (err) {
> >>+ dev_err(port->dev, "pcie link training gen1 timeout!\n");
> >>+ return err;
> >>+ }
> >>+
> >>+ /*
> >>+ * Enable retrain for gen2. This should be configured only after
> >>+ * gen1 finished.
> >>+ */
> >>+ status = pcie_read(port,
> >>+ PCIR_RC_CONFIG_LCS + PCIE_RC_CONFIG_BASE);
> >>+ status |= PCIE_CORE_LCSR_RETAIN_LINK;
> >>+ pcie_write(port, status,
> >>+ PCIR_RC_CONFIG_LCS + PCIE_RC_CONFIG_BASE);
> >
> >I'm not really an expert on this, but how are you actually "retraining
> >for gen2"? Is that just the behavior of the core, that it retries at the
> >higher rate on the 2nd training attempt? I'm just confused, since you
> >set PCIE_CLIENT_GEN_SEL_2 above, so you've already allowed either gen1
> >or gen2 negotiation AFAICT, and so seemingly you might already have
> >negotiated at gen2.
>
>
> Not really. I allow the core to enable gen2, but it needs a extra
> setting of retrain after finishing gen1. It's not so strange as it
> depends on the vendor's design. So I have to say it fits the
> designer's expectation.
OK.
> >>+ err = -ETIMEDOUT;
> >>+
> >>+ while (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) {
> >
> >You never reset 'timeout' when starting this loop. So you only have a
> >cumulative 500 ms to do both the gen1 and gen2 loops. Is that
> >intentional? (I feel like this comment was made on an earlier revision
> >of this driver, though I haven't read everything thoroughly.)
>
> yes, I don't have any docs to let me know how long should I wait for
> gen1/2 to be finished. Maybe someday it will be augmented to a larger
> value if finding a device actually need a longer time. But the only
> thing I can say is that it's from my test for many pcie devices
> currently.
>
>
> Do you agree?
I'm not suggesting increasing the timeout, exactly; I'm suggesting that
you should set some minimum timeout for each training loop, instead of
reusing the same deadline. i.e., something like this before the second
loop:
/* Reset the deadline for gen2 */
timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(500);
As it stands, if the first loop takes 490 ms, that leaves you only 10 ms
for the second loop. And I think it'd be confusing if we ever see the
first loop take a "long" time, and then we time out on the second --
we'd be blaming the gen2 training for gen1's slowness.
> >>+ status = pcie_read(port, PCIE_CORE_CTRL_MGMT_BASE);
> >>+ if (((status >> PCIE_CORE_PL_CONF_SPEED_SHIFT) &
> >>+ PCIE_CORE_PL_CONF_SPEED_MASK) ==
> >>+ PCIE_CORE_PL_CONF_SPEED_50G) {
> >>+ dev_dbg(port->dev, "pcie link training gen2 pass!\n");
> >>+ err = 0;
> >>+ break;
> >>+ }
> >>+ msleep(20);
> >>+ }
> >
> >Similar problem with your timeout loop, as mentioned above. Although I
> >confused about what you do in the error case here...
> >
> >>+ if (err)
> >>+ dev_dbg(port->dev, "pcie link training gen2 timeout, force to gen1!\n");
> >
> >... how are you forcing gen1? I don't see any code that indicates this.
> >Should you at least be checking that there aren't some kind of training
> >errors, and that we settled back on gen1/2.5G?
>
> yes, when failing gen2, my pcie controller will fallback to gen1
> automatically.
OK. Well maybe the text should say something like "falling back" instead
of "force"?
> if we pass the gen1 then fail to train gen2, a dbg msg here is enough
> here to let we know that we should check the HW signal. Of course we
> should make sure that this device supports gen2.
OK.
[...]
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
