On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 05:23:04PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:50:23PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 08:08:26PM +0530, Manikanta Maddireddy wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 14-Jun-19 8:02 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:07:35PM +0530, Manikanta Maddireddy wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 13-Jun-19 8:54 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > >>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:22:33PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [...]
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> + } else {
> > > >>>>> + value = afi_readl(port->pcie, ctrl);
> > > >>>>> + value &= ~AFI_PEX_CTRL_RST;
> > > >>>>> + afi_writel(port->pcie, value, ctrl);
> > > >>>>> + }
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> usleep_range(1000, 2000);
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> - value = afi_readl(port->pcie, ctrl);
> > > >>>>> - value |= AFI_PEX_CTRL_RST;
> > > >>>>> - afi_writel(port->pcie, value, ctrl);
> > > >>>>> + if (port->reset_gpiod) {
> > > >>>>> + gpiod_set_value(port->reset_gpiod, 1);
> > > >>>> After this the port should be functional, right? I think it'd be better
> > > >>>> to reverse the logic here and move the polarity of the GPIO into device
> > > >>>> tree. gpiod_set_value() takes care of inverting the level internally if
> > > >>>> the GPIO is marked as low-active in DT.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The end result is obviously the same, but it makes the usage much
> > > >>>> clearer. If somebody want to write a DT for their board, they will look
> > > >>>> at the schematics and see a low-active reset line and may be tempted to
> > > >>>> describe it as such in DT, but with your current code that would be
> > > >>>> exactly the wrong way around.
> > > >>> I agree with Thierry here, you should change the logic.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Question: what's the advantage of adding GPIO reset support if that's
> > > >>> architected already in port registers ? I am pretty sure there is a
> > > >>> reason behind it (and forgive me the dumb question) and I would like to
> > > >>> have it written in the commit log.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Lorenzo
> > > >> Each PCIe controller has a dedicated SFIO pin to support PERST#
> > > >> signal. Port register can control only this particular SFIO pin.
> > > >> However, in one of the Nvidia platform, instead of using PCIe SFIO
> > > >> pin, different gpio is routed PCIe slot. This happened because of a
> > > >> confusion in IO ball naming convention. To support this particular
> > > >> platform, driver has provide gpio support. I will update the commit
> > > >> log in V5.
> > > > What happens on that platform where you trigger reset through a port
> > > > register with :
> > > >
> > > > value = afi_readl(port->pcie, ctrl);
> > > > value |= AFI_PEX_CTRL_RST;
> > > > afi_writel(port->pcie, value, ctrl);
> > > >
> > > > (imagine the DT is not updated for instance or on current
> > > > mainline) ?
> > > >
> > > > Lorenzo
> > >
> > > Lets take an example of PCIe controller-0, SFIO ball name which is
> > > controlled by the port-0 register is PEX_L0_RST. It will deassert
> > > PEX_L0_RST SFIO line but it doesn't go to PCIe slot, so fundamental
> > > reset(PERST# deassert) is not applied to the endpoint connected to
> > > that slot.
> >
> > That's the point I am making, if the reset is not applied nothing
> > will work (provided PEX_L0_RST does not do any damage either).
> >
> > For the platform in question you should make reset-gpios mandatory and
> > fail if not present (instead of toggling the wrong reset line) there is
> > no chance the driver can work without that property AFAICS.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing here. Are you suggesting
> that we put a check in the driver to see if we're running on a specific
> board and then fail if the reset-gpios are not there?
I am just trying to understand what this patch does. By reading it again
it looks like it makes GPIO PERST# reset mandatory for all platforms
supported by this driver (because if the driver does not grab an handle
to the GPIO tegra_pcie_parse_dt() fails), if I read the code correctly,
apologies if not.
Which makes me question the check:
if (port->reset_gpiod) {
gpiod_set_value(port->reset_gpiod, 0);
in tegra_pcie_port_reset(), if we are there port->reset_gpiod can't be
NULL or I am missing something and also make:
} else {
value = afi_readl(port->pcie, ctrl);
value &= ~AFI_PEX_CTRL_RST;
afi_writel(port->pcie, value, ctrl);
}
path dead code.
Is this GPIO based #PERST a per-platform requirement or you want
to update the driver to always use GPIO based #PERST ?
And if it is a per-platform requirement I assume that a missing
DT property describing the GPIO #PERST should cause a probe failure,
not a fallback to port registers reset (which may have unintended
consequences).
>From the commit log it is not clear what this patch does and for what
reason it does it but it should be, let's define it here and update the
log accordingly for everyone's benefit.
Lorenzo
