On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:27:49PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:34:28PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:28:35PM +0530, Manikanta Maddireddy wrote:
> > > UPHY programming is performed by BPMP, PHY enable calls are
> > > not required for Tegra186 PCIe. Power partition ungate is
> > > done by BPMP powergate driver.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Manikanta Maddireddy <mmaddireddy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > V2: Add soc->program_uphy check for phy_exit call
> > > drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c | 132 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > 1 file changed, 108 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >
> > > @@ -1012,10 +1016,12 @@ static int tegra_pcie_enable_controller(struct tegra_pcie *pcie)
> > > afi_writel(pcie, value, AFI_FUSE);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - err = tegra_pcie_phy_power_on(pcie);
> > > - if (err < 0) {
> > > - dev_err(dev, "failed to power on PHY(s): %d\n", err);
> > > - return err;
> > > + if (soc->program_uphy) {
> > > + err = tegra_pcie_phy_power_on(pcie);
> > > + if (err < 0) {
> > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to power on PHY(s): %d\n", err);
> > > + return err;
> > > + }
> >
> > This looks good: it's obvious that the previously-supported devices
> > continue to work the same way because you set ".program_uphy = true"
> > for them. (It would be even more obvious if you changed the sense so
> > that only the new device had to add this initializaer, but in general
> > I prefer the positive logic as you have here, and I did verify that
> > you added the initializer for all tegra_pcie_soc variants.)
> >
> > > @@ -1048,19 +1054,23 @@ static int tegra_pcie_enable_controller(struct tegra_pcie *pcie)
> > > static void tegra_pcie_power_off(struct tegra_pcie *pcie)
> > > {
> > > struct device *dev = pcie->dev;
> > > + const struct tegra_pcie_soc *soc = pcie->soc;
> > > int err;
> > >
> > > /* TODO: disable and unprepare clocks? */
> > >
> > > - err = tegra_pcie_phy_power_off(pcie);
> > > - if (err < 0)
> > > - dev_err(dev, "failed to power off PHY(s): %d\n", err);
> > > + if (soc->program_uphy) {
> > > + err = tegra_pcie_phy_power_off(pcie);
> > > + if (err < 0)
> > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to power off PHY(s): %d\n", err);
> > > + }
> > >
> > > reset_control_assert(pcie->pcie_xrst);
> > > reset_control_assert(pcie->afi_rst);
> > > reset_control_assert(pcie->pex_rst);
> > >
> > > - tegra_powergate_power_off(TEGRA_POWERGATE_PCIE);
> > > + if (!dev->pm_domain)
> > > + tegra_powergate_power_off(TEGRA_POWERGATE_PCIE);
> >
> > But this one isn't obvious because nothing in your patch obviously
> > affects dev->pm_domain, so I can't tell whether this is safe. It's
> > worth a changelog comment to help justify this.
>
> The last sentence in the commit message is what this is about. Maybe it
> should be more verbose:
>
> Since the BPMP controls the powergates on Tegra186, there is no
> need to manually power on and off the PCIe power partition. The
> BPMP generic power domain driver takes care of it instead.
If you know Tegra intimately, maybe that clarifies it. I don't, so my
problem is that there's nothing in the patch that helps me verify
this. I infer that maybe there's something different in the DT that
means dev->pm_domain will be set for Tegra186, but not for other
variants?
There should be something that helps the reader connect the dots.
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
