lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0fa706f8-1aae-4cf6-08c9-6f12ba342eab@mm-sol.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 23:36:12 +0300
From:   Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...sol.com>
To:     Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>,
        Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        MSM <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: qcom: Ensure that PERST is asserted for at least 100
 ms

Hi Niklas,


On 27.05.19 г. 20:15 ч., Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 02:43:00PM +0200, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>> On 23/05/2019 21:44, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>>
>>> Currently, there is only a 1 ms sleep after asserting PERST.
>>>
>>> Reading the datasheets for different endpoints, some require PERST to be
>>> asserted for 10 ms in order for the endpoint to perform a reset, others
>>> require it to be asserted for 50 ms.
>>>
>>> Several SoCs using this driver uses PCIe Mini Card, where we don't know
>>> what endpoint will be plugged in.
>>>
>>> The PCI Express Card Electromechanical Specification specifies:
>>> "On power up, the deassertion of PERST# is delayed 100 ms (TPVPERL) from
>>> the power rails achieving specified operating limits."
>>>
>>> Add a sleep of 100 ms before deasserting PERST, in order to ensure that
>>> we are compliant with the spec.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 2 ++
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
>>> index 0ed235d560e3..cae24376237c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
>>> @@ -1110,6 +1110,8 @@ static int qcom_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>>   	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_MSI))
>>>   		dw_pcie_msi_init(pp);
>>>   
>>> +	/* Ensure that PERST has been asserted for at least 100 ms */
>>> +	msleep(100);
>>>   	qcom_ep_reset_deassert(pcie);
>>>   
>>>   	ret = qcom_pcie_establish_link(pcie);
>>
>> Currently, qcom_ep_reset_assert() and qcom_ep_reset_deassert() both include
>> a call to usleep_range() of 1.0 to 1.5 ms
>>
>> Can we git rid of both if we sleep 100 ms before qcom_ep_reset_deassert?
> 
> These two sleeps after asserting/deasserting reset in qcom_ep_reset_assert()/
> qcom_ep_reset_deassert() matches the sleeps in:
> https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/kernel/msm-4.14/tree/drivers/pci/host/pci-msm.c?h=LA.UM.7.1.r1-14000-sm8150.0#n1942
> 
> and
> 
> https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/kernel/msm-4.14/tree/drivers/pci/host/pci-msm.c?h=LA.UM.7.1.r1-14000-sm8150.0#n1949
> 
> I would rather not remove these since that might affect existing devices.
> 
> 
> This new sleep matches matches the sleep in:
> https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/kernel/msm-4.14/tree/drivers/pci/host/pci-msm.c?h=LA.UM.7.1.r1-14000-sm8150.0#n3926
> 
>>
>> Should the msleep() call be included in one of the two wrappers?
> 
> This new sleep could be moved into qcom_ep_reset_deassert(),
> added before the gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pcie->reset, 0) call,
> if Stanimir prefers it to be placed there instead.

yes, please move the sleep in qcom_ep_reset_deassert()

with that:

Acked-by: Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...sol.com>

regards,
Stan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ