[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c79de6c7-5d86-4090-085b-63163d2467e7@synopsys.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:11:23 +0100
From: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
To: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>,
Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
CC: <jingoohan1@...il.com>, <pratyush.anand@...il.com>,
<bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: designware: let dw_pcie_link_up() beware of
LTSSM training bit
Hi Jisheng,
On 7/18/2016 3:38 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> Dear Joao,
>
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:10:24 +0100 Joao Pinto wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7/6/2016 11:59 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>> The link may be UP but still in link training. In this case, we can't
>>> think the link is up and operating correctly. So we need to teach
>>> dw_pcie_link_up() beware of the PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1_LINK_IN_TRAINING bit.
>>>
>>> This patch also rewrite PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1_LINK_UP definition so that
>>> it's consistent with other MACROS.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c | 6 ++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c
>>> index 9df879a..29e10dd 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c
>>> @@ -73,7 +73,8 @@
>>> /* PCIe Port Logic registers */
>>> #define PLR_OFFSET 0x700
>>> #define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1 (PLR_OFFSET + 0x2c)
>>> -#define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1_LINK_UP 0x00000010
>>> +#define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1_LINK_UP (0x1 << 4)
>>> +#define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1_LINK_IN_TRAINING (0x1 << 29)
>>
>> According to the databook bit 29 is inside a range that is dedicated to M-PCIe.
>> Have you checked bit 29 state by experience?
>
> bit 29 here is bit 61 of cxpl_debug_info(64bit) in databook, the debug info is
> composited by debug 0 and debug 1 registers.
You are absolutely correct... I misread the databook in this subject.
In the latest Core versions this is also valid.
Acked-By: Joao Pinto <jpinto@...opsys.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists