[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170829200209.GN8154@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:02:09 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Oza Oza <oza.oza@...adcom.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
Jon Mason <jonmason@...adcom.com>,
BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...adcom.com>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oza Pawandeep <oza.pawandeep@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] PCI: iproc: retry request when CRS returned from
EP
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:02:23AM +0530, Oza Oza wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:34:25AM +0530, Oza Pawandeep wrote:
> >> PCIe spec r3.1, sec 2.3.2
> >> If CRS software visibility is not enabled, the RC must reissue the
> >> config request as a new request.
> >>
> >> - If CRS software visibility is enabled,
> >> - for a config read of Vendor ID, the RC must return 0x0001 data
> >> - for all other config reads/writes, the RC must reissue the
> >> request
> >>
> >> iproc PCIe Controller spec:
> >> 4.7.3.3. Retry Status On Configuration Cycle
> >> Endpoints are allowed to generate retry status on configuration
> >> cycles. In this case, the RC needs to re-issue the request. The IP
> >> does not handle this because the number of configuration cycles needed
> >> will probably be less than the total number of non-posted operations
> >> needed.
> >>
> >> When a retry status is received on the User RX interface for a
> >> configuration request that was sent on the User TX interface,
> >> it will be indicated with a completion with the CMPL_STATUS field set
> >> to 2=CRS, and the user will have to find the address and data values
> >> and send a new transaction on the User TX interface.
> >> When the internal configuration space returns a retry status during a
> >> configuration cycle (user_cscfg = 1) on the Command/Status interface,
> >> the pcie_cscrs will assert with the pcie_csack signal to indicate the
> >> CRS status.
> >> When the CRS Software Visibility Enable register in the Root Control
> >> register is enabled, the IP will return the data value to 0x0001 for
> >> the Vendor ID value and 0xffff (all 1’s) for the rest of the data in
> >> the request for reads of offset 0 that return with CRS status. This
> >> is true for both the User RX Interface and for the Command/Status
> >> interface. When CRS Software Visibility is enabled, the CMPL_STATUS
> >> field of the completion on the User RX Interface will not be 2=CRS and
> >> the pcie_cscrs signal will not assert on the Command/Status interface.
> >>
> >> Per PCIe r3.1, sec 2.3.2, config requests that receive completions
> >> with Configuration Request Retry Status (CRS) should be reissued by
> >> the hardware except reads of the Vendor ID when CRS Software
> >> Visibility is enabled.
> >>
> >> This hardware never reissues configuration requests when it receives
> >> CRS completions.
> >> Note that, neither PCIe host bridge nor PCIe core re-issues the
> >> request for any configuration offset.
> >>
> >> For config reads, this hardware returns CFG_RETRY_STATUS data when
> >> it receives a CRS completion for a config read, regardless of the
> >> address of the read or the CRS Software Visibility Enable bit.
> >>
> >> This patch implements iproc_pcie_config_read which gets called for
> >> Stingray, if it receives a CRS completion, it retries reading it again.
> >> In case of timeout, it returns 0xffffffff.
> >> For other iproc based SOC, it falls back to PCI generic APIs.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza@...adcom.com>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
> >> index 61d9be6..37f4adf 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
> >> @@ -68,6 +68,9 @@
> >> #define APB_ERR_EN_SHIFT 0
> >> #define APB_ERR_EN BIT(APB_ERR_EN_SHIFT)
> >>
> >> +#define CFG_RETRY_STATUS 0xffff0001
> >> +#define CFG_RETRY_STATUS_TIMEOUT_US 500000 /* 500 milli-seconds. */
> >> +
> >> /* derive the enum index of the outbound/inbound mapping registers */
> >> #define MAP_REG(base_reg, index) ((base_reg) + (index) * 2)
> >>
> >> @@ -473,6 +476,64 @@ static void __iomem *iproc_pcie_map_ep_cfg_reg(struct iproc_pcie *pcie,
> >> return (pcie->base + offset);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static unsigned int iproc_pcie_cfg_retry(void __iomem *cfg_data_p)
> >> +{
> >> + int timeout = CFG_RETRY_STATUS_TIMEOUT_US;
> >> + unsigned int data;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * As per PCIe spec r3.1, sec 2.3.2, CRS Software
> >> + * Visibility only affects config read of the Vendor ID.
> >> + * For config write or any other config read the Root must
> >> + * automatically re-issue configuration request again as a
> >> + * new request.
> >> + *
> >> + * For config reads, this hardware returns CFG_RETRY_STATUS data when
> >> + * it receives a CRS completion for a config read, regardless of the
> >> + * address of the read or the CRS Software Visibility Enable bit. As a
> >> + * partial workaround for this, we retry in software any read that
> >> + * returns CFG_RETRY_STATUS.
> >> + */
> >> + data = readl(cfg_data_p);
> >> + while (data == CFG_RETRY_STATUS && timeout--) {
> >> + udelay(1);
> >> + data = readl(cfg_data_p);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (data == CFG_RETRY_STATUS)
> >> + data = 0xffffffff;
> >> +
> >> + return data;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int iproc_pcie_config_read(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
> >> + int where, int size, u32 *val)
> >> +{
> >> + struct iproc_pcie *pcie = iproc_data(bus);
> >> + unsigned int slot = PCI_SLOT(devfn);
> >> + unsigned int fn = PCI_FUNC(devfn);
> >> + unsigned int busno = bus->number;
> >> + void __iomem *cfg_data_p;
> >> + unsigned int data;
> >> +
> >> + /* root complex access. */
> >> + if (busno == 0)
> >> + return pci_generic_config_read32(bus, devfn, where, size, val);
> >
> > It sounds like Stingray advertises CRS SV support in its Root Capabilities
> > register. I think we should mask out PCI_EXP_RTCAP_CRSVIS so we don't
> > advertise it. That will keep Linux from trying to enable it. I know the
> > hardware doesn't look at PCI_EXP_RTCTL_CRSSVE, but there's no point in
> > confusing users reading the lspci output.
> >
> > We did something similar with f09f8735fb9c ("PCI: xgene: Disable
> > Configuration Request Retry Status for v1 silicon").
> >
> > I tried to do this in the patch I pushed to pci/host-iproc.
> >
> >> +
> >> + cfg_data_p = iproc_pcie_map_ep_cfg_reg(pcie, busno, slot, fn, where);
> >> +
> >> + if (!cfg_data_p)
> >> + return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
> >> +
> >> + data = iproc_pcie_cfg_retry(cfg_data_p);
> >> +
> >> + *val = data;
> >> + if (size <= 2)
> >> + *val = (data >> (8 * (where & 3))) & ((1 << (size * 8)) - 1);
> >> +
> >> + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> /**
> >> * Note access to the configuration registers are protected at the higher layer
> >> * by 'pci_lock' in drivers/pci/access.c
> >> @@ -567,8 +628,13 @@ static int iproc_pcie_config_read32(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
> >> int where, int size, u32 *val)
> >> {
> >> int ret;
> >> + struct iproc_pcie *pcie = iproc_data(bus);
> >>
> >> iproc_pcie_apb_err_disable(bus, true);
> >> + if (pcie->type == IPROC_PCIE_PAXB_V2)
> >> + ret = iproc_pcie_config_read(bus, devfn, where, size, val);
> >> + else
> >> + ret = pci_generic_config_read32(bus, devfn, where, size, val);
> >> ret = pci_generic_config_read32(bus, devfn, where, size, val);
> >
> > This last pci_generic_config_read32() call looks like a duplicate.
>
> yes indeed.
> I have tested your CRS visibility bit changes; and it works fine.
>
> do you want me to post new patch-set by removing the duplicate call
> along with the changes you have made ?
>
> or since, you have already applied patches, with your changes, you
> will take care of removing this last duplicate call ?
> I think this is the last change for this patch-set, If I did not miss anything.
>
> please let me know.
I already removed that duplicate call. It should be in the next -next.
Let me know if there's anything wrong with it.
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists