On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 02:46:27PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > On 4/1/2019 8:01 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 04:48:42PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > > > On 3/31/2019 12:12 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 08:43:22PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: [...] > > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > > +- nvidia,max-speed: limits controllers max speed to this value. > > > > > + 1 - Gen-1 (2.5 GT/s) > > > > > + 2 - Gen-2 (5 GT/s) > > > > > + 3 - Gen-3 (8 GT/s) > > > > > + 4 - Gen-4 (16 GT/s) > > > > > +- nvidia,init-speed: limits controllers init speed to this value. > > > > > + 1 - Gen-1 (2. 5 GT/s) > > > > > + 2 - Gen-2 (5 GT/s) > > > > > + 3 - Gen-3 (8 GT/s) > > > > > + 4 - Gen-4 (16 GT/s) > > > > > > > > Don't we have standard speed properties? > > > Not that I'm aware of. If you come across any, please do let me know and > > > I'll change these. > > > > See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/pci.txt, max-link-speed. > > There's a standard of_pci_get_max_link_speed() property that reads it > > from device tree. > Thanks for the pointer. I'll switch to this in the next patch. > > > > > > > Why do we need 2 values? > > > max-speed configures the controller to advertise the speed mentioned through > > > this flag, whereas, init-speed gets the link up at this speed and software > > > can further take the link speed to a different speed by retraining the link. > > > This is to give flexibility to developers depending on the platform. > > > > This seems to me like overcomplicating things. Couldn't we do something > > like start in the slowest mode by default and then upgrade if endpoints > > support higher speeds? > > > > I'm assuming that the maximum speed is already fixed by the IP hardware > > instantiation, so why would we want to limit it additionally? Similarly, > > what's the use-case for setting the initial link speed to something > > other than the lowest speed? > You are right that maximum speed supported by hardware is fixed and through > max-link-speed DT option, flexibility is given to limit it to the desired speed > for a controller on a given platform. As mentioned in the documentation for max-link-speed, > this is a strategy to avoid unnecessary operation for unsupported link speed. > There is no real use-case as such even for setting the initial link speed, but it is > there to give flexibility (for any debugging) to get the link up at a certain speed > and then take it to a higher speed at a later point of time. Please note that, hardware > as such already has the capability to take the link to maximum speed agreed by both > upstream and downstream ports. 'nvidia,init-speed' is only to give more flexibility > while debugging. I'm OK to remove it if this is not adding much value here. If this is primarily used for debugging or troubleshooting, maybe making it a module parameter is a better choice? I can see how max-link-speed might be good in certain situations where a board layout may mandate that a link speed slower than the one supported by the hardware is used, but I can't imagine a case where the initial link speed would have to be limited based on the hardware designe. Rob, do you know of any other cases where something like this is being used? > > > > > +- nvidia,disable-aspm-states : controls advertisement of ASPM states > > > > > + bit-0 to '1' : disables advertisement of ASPM-L0s > > > > > + bit-1 to '1' : disables advertisement of ASPM-L1. This also disables > > > > > + advertisement of ASPM-L1.1 and ASPM-L1.2 > > > > > + bit-2 to '1' : disables advertisement of ASPM-L1.1 > > > > > + bit-3 to '1' : disables advertisement of ASPM-L1.2 > > > > > > > > Seems like these too should be common. > > > This flag controls the advertisement of different ASPM states by root port. > > > Again, I'm not aware of any common method for this. > > > > rockchip-pcie-host.txt documents an "aspm-no-l0s" property that prevents > > the root complex from advertising L0s. Sounds like maybe following a > > similar scheme would be best for consistency. I think we'll also want > > these to be non-NVIDIA specific, so drop the "nvidia," prefix and maybe > > document them in pci.txt so that they can be more broadly used. > Since we have ASPM-L0s, L1, L1.1 and L1.2 states, I prefer to have just one entry > with different bit positions indicating which particular state should not be > advertised by root port. Do you see any particular advantage to have 4 different options? > If having one options is fine, I'll remove "nvidia," and document it in pci.txt. I don't care strongly either way. It's really up to Rob to decide. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
