On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:18 PM <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > Da: Ilia Mirkin <ibmirkin@xxxxxxxxx> Per conto di Ilia Mirkin
> > Inviato: lunedì 7 settembre 2020 03:13
> > A: ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ilia Mirkin
> > <imirkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Oggetto: [PATCH] PCI: qcom: don't clear out PHY_REFCLK_USE_PAD
> >
> > This makes PCIe links come up again on ifc6410 (apq8064).
> >
> > Fixes: de3c4bf6489 ("PCI: qcom: Add support for tx term offset for rev
> > 2.1.0")
> > Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > index 3aac77a295ba..985b11cf6481 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > @@ -387,7 +387,6 @@ static int qcom_pcie_init_2_1_0(struct qcom_pcie
> > *pcie)
> >
> > /* enable external reference clock */
> > val = readl(pcie->parf + PCIE20_PARF_PHY_REFCLK);
> > - val &= ~PHY_REFCLK_USE_PAD;
>
> To make sure this doesn't brake ipq806x, why not limit the &= to the ipq806x
> compatible like we do up in the code? (or use the use_pad only if apq8064
> compatible is not detected, to address ipq8064-v2 added later?)
Do you mean something like
if (!of_device_is_compatible(node, "qcom,pcie-apq8064"))
val &= ~PHY_REFCLK_USE_PAD;
I'm not sure what's considered acceptable in these cases. It does seem
odd that this bit should not be cleared on apq8064 but should be on
ipq8064 -- perhaps there's more going on there? Unfortunately I
haven't the faintest clue as to what it is...
-ilia
