On 7/16/2019 4:52 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:34:34PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: [...]+static int tegra_pcie_bpmp_set_ctrl_state(struct tegra_pcie_dw *pcie, + bool enable) +{ + struct mrq_uphy_response resp; + struct tegra_bpmp_message msg; + struct mrq_uphy_request req; + int err; + + if (pcie->cid == 5) + return 0;What's wrong with cid == 5 ? Explain please.Controller with ID=5 doesn't need any programming to enable it which is done here through calling firmware API.+ memset(&req, 0, sizeof(req)); + memset(&resp, 0, sizeof(resp)); + + req.cmd = CMD_UPHY_PCIE_CONTROLLER_STATE; + req.controller_state.pcie_controller = pcie->cid; + req.controller_state.enable = enable; + + memset(&msg, 0, sizeof(msg)); + msg.mrq = MRQ_UPHY; + msg.tx.data = &req; + msg.tx.size = sizeof(req); + msg.rx.data = &resp; + msg.rx.size = sizeof(resp); + + if (irqs_disabled())Can you explain to me what this check is meant to achieve please ?Firmware interface provides different APIs to be called when there are no interrupts enabled in the system (noirq context) and otherwise hence checking that situation here and calling appropriate API.That's what I am questioning. Being called from {suspend/resume}_noirq() callbacks (if that's the code path this check caters for) does not mean irqs_disabled() == true.Agree. Actually, I got a hint of having this check from the following. Both tegra_bpmp_transfer_atomic() and tegra_bpmp_transfer() are indirectly called by APIs registered with .master_xfer() and .master_xfer_atomic() hooks of struct i2c_algorithm and the decision to call which one of these is made using the following check in i2c-core.h file. static inline bool i2c_in_atomic_xfer_mode(void) { return system_state > SYSTEM_RUNNING && irqs_disabled(); } I think I should use this condition as is IIUC. Please let me know if there are any concerns with this.It is not a concern, it is just that I don't understand how this code can be called with IRQs disabled, if you can give me an execution path I am happy to leave the check there. On top of that, when called from suspend NOIRQ context, it is likely to use the blocking API (because IRQs aren't disabled at CPU level) behind which there is most certainly an IRQ required to wake the thread up and if the IRQ in question was disabled in the suspend NOIRQ phase this code is likely to deadlock. I want to make sure we can justify adding this check, I do not want to add it because we think it can be needed when it may not be needed at all (and it gets copy and pasted over and over again in other drivers).
I had a discussion internally about this and the prescribed usage of these APIs seem to be that use tegra_bpmp_transfer() in .probe() and other paths where interrupts are enabled as this API needs interrupts to be enabled for its working. Use tegra_bpmp_transfer_atomic() surrounded by local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore() in other paths where interrupt servicing is disabled. I'll go ahead and make next patch series with this if this looks fine to you.
Actually, if tegra_bpmp_transfer() requires IRQs to be enabled you may even end up in a situation where that blocking call does not wake up because the IRQ in question was disabled in the NOIRQ suspend/resume phase. [...]+static int tegra_pcie_dw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) +{ + const struct tegra_pcie_soc *data; + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; + struct resource *atu_dma_res; + struct tegra_pcie_dw *pcie; + struct resource *dbi_res; + struct pcie_port *pp; + struct dw_pcie *pci; + struct phy **phys; + char *name; + int ret; + u32 i; + + pcie = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pcie), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!pcie) + return -ENOMEM; + + pci = &pcie->pci; + pci->dev = &pdev->dev; + pci->ops = &tegra_dw_pcie_ops; + pp = &pci->pp; + pcie->dev = &pdev->dev; + + data = (struct tegra_pcie_soc *)of_device_get_match_data(dev); + if (!data) + return -EINVAL; + pcie->mode = (enum dw_pcie_device_mode)data->mode; + + ret = tegra_pcie_dw_parse_dt(pcie); + if (ret < 0) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to parse device tree: %d\n", ret); + return ret; + } + + pcie->pex_ctl_supply = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vddio-pex-ctl"); + if (IS_ERR(pcie->pex_ctl_supply)) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get regulator: %ld\n", + PTR_ERR(pcie->pex_ctl_supply)); + return PTR_ERR(pcie->pex_ctl_supply); + } + + pcie->core_clk = devm_clk_get(dev, "core"); + if (IS_ERR(pcie->core_clk)) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get core clock: %ld\n", + PTR_ERR(pcie->core_clk)); + return PTR_ERR(pcie->core_clk); + } + + pcie->appl_res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, + "appl"); + if (!pcie->appl_res) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to find \"appl\" region\n"); + return PTR_ERR(pcie->appl_res); + } + pcie->appl_base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, pcie->appl_res); + if (IS_ERR(pcie->appl_base)) + return PTR_ERR(pcie->appl_base); + + pcie->core_apb_rst = devm_reset_control_get(dev, "apb"); + if (IS_ERR(pcie->core_apb_rst)) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get APB reset: %ld\n", + PTR_ERR(pcie->core_apb_rst)); + return PTR_ERR(pcie->core_apb_rst); + } + + phys = devm_kcalloc(dev, pcie->phy_count, sizeof(*phys), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!phys) + return PTR_ERR(phys); + + for (i = 0; i < pcie->phy_count; i++) { + name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "p2u-%u", i); + if (!name) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to create P2U string\n"); + return -ENOMEM; + } + phys[i] = devm_phy_get(dev, name); + kfree(name); + if (IS_ERR(phys[i])) { + ret = PTR_ERR(phys[i]); + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get PHY: %d\n", ret); + return ret; + } + } + + pcie->phys = phys; + + dbi_res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "dbi"); + if (!dbi_res) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to find \"dbi\" region\n"); + return PTR_ERR(dbi_res); + } + pcie->dbi_res = dbi_res; + + pci->dbi_base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, dbi_res); + if (IS_ERR(pci->dbi_base)) + return PTR_ERR(pci->dbi_base); + + /* Tegra HW locates DBI2 at a fixed offset from DBI */ + pci->dbi_base2 = pci->dbi_base + 0x1000; + + atu_dma_res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, + "atu_dma"); + if (!atu_dma_res) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to find \"atu_dma\" region\n"); + return PTR_ERR(atu_dma_res); + } + pcie->atu_dma_res = atu_dma_res; + pci->atu_base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, atu_dma_res); + if (IS_ERR(pci->atu_base)) + return PTR_ERR(pci->atu_base); + + pcie->core_rst = devm_reset_control_get(dev, "core"); + if (IS_ERR(pcie->core_rst)) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get core reset: %ld\n", + PTR_ERR(pcie->core_rst)); + return PTR_ERR(pcie->core_rst); + } + + pp->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "intr"); + if (!pp->irq) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get \"intr\" interrupt\n"); + return -ENODEV; + } + + ret = devm_request_irq(dev, pp->irq, tegra_pcie_irq_handler, + IRQF_SHARED, "tegra-pcie-intr", pcie); + if (ret) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed to request IRQ %d: %d\n", pp->irq, ret); + return ret; + } + + pcie->bpmp = tegra_bpmp_get(dev); + if (IS_ERR(pcie->bpmp)) + return PTR_ERR(pcie->bpmp); + + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pcie); + + if (pcie->mode == DW_PCIE_RC_TYPE) { + ret = tegra_pcie_config_rp(pcie); + if (ret && ret != -ENOMEDIUM) + goto fail; + else + return 0;So if the link is not up we still go ahead and make probe succeed. What for ?We may need root port to be available to support hot-plugging of endpoint devices, so, we don't fail the probe.We need it or we don't. If you do support hotplugging of endpoint devices point me at the code, otherwise link up failure means failure to probe.Currently hotplugging of endpoint is not supported, but it is one of the use cases that we may add support for in future.You should elaborate on this, I do not understand what you mean, either the root port(s) supports hotplug or it does not.But, why should we fail probe if link up doesn't happen? As such, nothing went wrong in terms of root port initialization right? I checked other DWC based implementations and following are not failing the probe pci-dra7xx.c, pcie-armada8k.c, pcie-artpec6.c, pcie-histb.c, pcie-kirin.c, pcie-spear13xx.c, pci-exynos.c, pci-imx6.c, pci-keystone.c, pci-layerscape.c Although following do fail the probe if link is not up. pcie-qcom.c, pcie-uniphier.c, pci-meson.c So, to me, it looks more like a choice we can make whether to fail the probe or not and in this case we are choosing not to fail.I disagree. I had an offline chat with Bjorn and whether link-up should fail the probe or not depends on whether the root port(s) is hotplug capable or not and this in turn relies on the root port "Slot implemented" bit in the PCI Express capabilities register. It is a choice but it should be based on evidence. Lorenzo
With Bjorn's latest comment on top of this, I think we are good not to fail the probe here. - Vidya Sagar
