Hi,
On 25/10/19 7:20 PM, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 5:35 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On 04/01/19 1:32 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> On 02/01/19 10:04 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/18 7:37 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14/12/18 10:31 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/18 10:23 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/10/18 9:36 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 27/11/18 4:39 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some implementations of the DWC PCIe endpoint controller do not allow
>>>>>>>>> access to DBI registers until the attached host has started REFCLK,
>>>>>>>>> released PERST, and the endpoint driver has initialized clocking of the
>>>>>>>>> DBI registers based on that. One such system is NVIDIA's T194 SoC. The
>>>>>>>>> PCIe endpoint subsystem and DWC driver currently don't work on such
>>>>>>>>> hardware, since they assume that all endpoint configuration can happen
>>>>>>>>> at any arbitrary time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Enhance the DWC endpoint driver to support such systems by caching all
>>>>>>>>> endpoint configuration in software, and only writing the configuration
>>>>>>>>> to hardware once it's been initialized. This is implemented by splitting
>>>>>>>>> all endpoint controller ops into two functions; the first which simply
>>>>>>>>> records/caches the desired configuration whenever called by the
>>>>>>>>> associated function driver and optionally calls the second, and the
>>>>>>>>> second which actually programs the configuration into hardware, which
>>>>>>>>> may be called either by the first function, or later when it's known
>>>>>>>>> that the DBI registers are available.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +void dw_pcie_set_regs_available(struct dw_pcie *pci)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When will this function be invoked? Does the wrapper get an interrupt when
>>>>>>>> refclk is enabled where this function will be invoked?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there's an IRQ from the HW that indicates when PEXRST is released. I
>>>>>>> don't recall right now if this IRQ is something that exists for all DWC
>>>>>>> instantiations, or is Tegra-specific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + struct dw_pcie_ep *ep = &(pci->ep);
>>>>>>>>> + int i;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + ep->hw_regs_not_available = false;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This can race with epc_ops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + dw_pcie_ep_write_header_regs(ep);
>>>>>>>>> + for_each_set_bit(i, ep->ib_window_map, ep->num_ib_windows) {
>>>>>>>>> + dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu(pci, i,
>>>>>>>>> + ep->cached_inbound_atus[i].bar,
>>>>>>>>> + ep->cached_inbound_atus[i].cpu_addr,
>>>>>>>>> + ep->cached_inbound_atus[i].as_type);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Depending on the context in which this function is invoked, programming
>>>>>>>> inbound/outbound ATU can also race with EPC ops.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> + dw_pcie_ep_set_bar_regs(ep, 0, ep->cached_inbound_atus[i].bar);
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> + for_each_set_bit(i, ep->ob_window_map, ep->num_ob_windows)
>>>>>>>>> + dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu(pci, i, PCIE_ATU_TYPE_MEM,
>>>>>>>>> + ep->cached_outbound_atus[i].addr,
>>>>>>>>> + ep->cached_outbound_atus[i].pci_addr,
>>>>>>>>> + ep->cached_outbound_atus[i].size);
>>>>>>>>> + dw_pcie_dbi_ro_wr_en(pci);
>>>>>>>>> + dw_pcie_writew_dbi(pci, PCI_MSI_FLAGS, ep->cached_msi_flags);
>>>>>>>>> + dw_pcie_writew_dbi(pci, PCI_MSIX_FLAGS, ep->cached_msix_flags);
>>>>>>>>> + dw_pcie_dbi_ro_wr_dis(pci);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMHO we should add a new epc ops ->epc_init() which indicates if the
>>>>>>>> EPC is
>>>>>>>> ready to be initialized or not. Only if the epc_init indicates it's ready
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> initialized, the endpoint function driver should go ahead with further
>>>>>>>> initialization. Or else it should wait for a notification from EPC to
>>>>>>>> indicate
>>>>>>>> when it's ready to be initialized.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Did you mean epf op or epc op?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure how exactly how that would work; do you want the DWC core
>>>>>>> driver
>>>>>>> or the endpoint subsystem to poll that epc op to find out when the HW is
>>>>>>> ready to be initialized? Or do you envisage the controller driver still
>>>>>>> calling dw_pcie_set_regs_available() (possibly renamed), which in turn
>>>>>>> calls
>>>>>>> ->epc_init() calls for some reason?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don't want to cache the endpoint configuration, perhaps you want:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) Endpoint function doesn't pro-actively call the endpoint controller
>>>>>>> functions to configure the endpoint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) When endpoint HW is ready, the relevant driver calls pci_epc_ready() (or
>>>>>>> whatever name), which lets the core know the HW can be configured. Perhaps
>>>>>>> this schedules a work queue item to implement locking to avoid the races
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> c) Endpoint core calls pci_epf_init() which calls epf op ->init().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One gotcha with this approach, which the caching approach helps avoid:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once PEXRST is released, the system must respond to PCIe enumeration
>>>>>>> requests
>>>>>>> within 50ms. Thus, SW must very quickly respond to the IRQ indicating
>>>>>>> PEXRST
>>>>>>> release and program the endpoint configuration into HW. By caching the
>>>>>>> configuration in the DWC driver and immediately/synchronously applying
>>>>>>> it in
>>>>>>> the PEXRST IRQ handler, we reduce the number of steps and amount of code
>>>>>>> taken to program the HW, so it should get done pretty quickly. If
>>>>>>> instead we
>>>>>>> call back into the endpoint function driver's ->init() op, we run the
>>>>>>> risk of
>>>>>>> that op doing other stuff besides just calling the endpoint HW
>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>> APIs (e.g. perhaps the function driver defers memory buffer allocation or
>>>>>>> IOVA programming to that ->init function) which in turns makes it much less
>>>>>>> likely the 50ms requirement will be hit. Perhaps we can solve this by
>>>>>>> naming
>>>>>>> the op well and providing lots of comments, but my guess is that endpoint
>>>>>>> function authors won't notice that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kishon,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any further details exactly how you'd prefer this to work?
>>>>>> Does the
>>>>>> approach I describe in points a/b/c above sound like what you want? Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree with your PERST comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I have in mind is we add a new epc_init() ops. I feel there are more
>>>>> uses
>>>>> for it (For e.g I have an internal patch which uses epc_init to initialize
>>>>> DMA.
>>>>> Hopefully I'll post it soon).
>>>>> If you look at pci_epf_test, pci_epf_test_bind() is where the function
>>>>> actually
>>>>> starts to write to HW (i.e using pci_epc_*).
>>>>> So before the endpoint function invokes pci_epc_write_header(), it should
>>>>> invoke epc_init(). Only if that succeeds, it should go ahead with other
>>>>> initialization.
>>>>> If epc_init_* fails, we can have a particular error value to indicate the
>>>>> controller is waiting for clock from host (so that we don't return error from
>>>>> ->bind()). Once the controller receives the clock, it can send an atomic
>>>>> notification to the endpoint function driver to indicate it is ready to be
>>>>> initialized. (Atomic notification makes it easy to handle for multi function
>>>>> endpoint devices.)
>>>>> The endpoint function can then initialize the controller.
>>>>> I think except for pci_epf_test_alloc_space() all other functions are
>>>>> configuring the HW (in pci_epf_test_bind). pci_epf_test_alloc_space()
>>>>> could be
>>>>> moved to pci_epf_test_probe() so there are no expensive operations to be done
>>>>> once the controller is ready to be initialized.
>>>>> I have epc_init() and the atomic notification part already implemented and
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> planning to post it before next week. Once that is merged, we might have to
>>>>> reorder function in pci_epf_test driver and you have to return the correct
>>>>> error value for epc_init() if the clock is not there.
>>>>
>>>> Kishon, did you manage to post the patches that implement epc_init()? If so, a
>>>> link would be appreciated. Thanks.
>>>
>>> I haven't posted the patches yet. Sorry for the delay. Give me some more time
>>> please (till next week).
>>
>> I have posted one set of cleanup for EPC features [1] by introducing
>> epc_get_features(). Some of the things I initially thought should be in
>> epc_init actually fits in epc_get_features. However I still believe for your
>> usecase we should introduce ->epc_init().
>
> Hi Kishon,
> Do you have a Work-In-Progress patch set for ->epc_init()?
> If not, I would like to start working on that.
I only added epc_get_features() as it fitted better for whatever I thought
should be added in epc_init(). I think you can go ahead with implementing
->epc_init() for your usecase.
Thanks
Kishon
