| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20191001080546.GI42880@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 09:05:46 +0100
From: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>
To: Remi Pommarel <repk@...plefau.lt>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Ellie Reeves <ellierevves@...il.com>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: aardvark: Use LTSSM state to build link training
flag
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 06:52:30PM +0200, Remi Pommarel wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 04:40:18PM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Remi Pommarel wrote:
> > > Aardvark's PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT flag in its link status register is not
> > > implemented and does not reflect the actual link training state (the
> > > flag is always set to 0). In order to support link re-training feature
> > > this flag has to be emulated. The Link Training and Status State
> > > Machine (LTSSM) flag in Aardvark LMI config register could be used as
> > > a link training indicator. Indeed if the LTSSM is in L0 or upper state
> > > then link training has completed (see [1]).
> > >
> > > Unfortunately because after asking a link retraining it takes a while
> > > for the LTSSM state to become less than 0x10 (due to L0s to recovery
> > > state transition delays), LTSSM can still be in L0 while link training
> > > has not finished yet. So this waits for link to be in recovery or lesser
> > > state before returning after asking for a link retrain.
> > >
> > > [1] "PCI Express Base Specification", REV. 4.0
> > > PCI Express, February 19 2014, Table 4-14
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Remi Pommarel <repk@...plefau.lt>
> > > ---
> > > Changes since v1:
> > > - Rename retraining flag field
> > > - Fix DEVCTL register writing
> > >
> > > Changes since v2:
> > > - Rewrite patch logic so it is more legible
> > >
> > > Please note that I will unlikely be able to answer any comments from May
> > > 24th to June 10th.
> > > ---
> > > drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > index 134e0306ff00..8803083b2174 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > @@ -180,6 +180,8 @@
> > > #define LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 10
> > > #define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN 90000
> > > #define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX 100000
> > > +#define RETRAIN_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 10
> > > +#define RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_US 2000
> > >
> > > #define MSI_IRQ_NUM 32
> > >
> > > @@ -239,6 +241,17 @@ static int advk_pcie_wait_for_link(struct advk_pcie *pcie)
> > > return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void advk_pcie_wait_for_retrain(struct advk_pcie *pcie)
> > > +{
> > > + size_t retries;
> > > +
> > > + for (retries = 0; retries < RETRAIN_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES; ++retries) {
> > > + if (!advk_pcie_link_up(pcie))
> > > + break;
> > > + udelay(RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_US);
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static void advk_pcie_setup_hw(struct advk_pcie *pcie)
> > > {
> > > u32 reg;
> > > @@ -426,11 +439,20 @@ advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_read(struct pci_bridge_emul *bridge,
> > > return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL: {
> > > + /* u32 contains both PCI_EXP_LNKCTL and PCI_EXP_LNKSTA */
> > > + u32 val = advk_readl(pcie, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg) &
> > > + ~(PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT << 16);
> >
> > The commit message says "the flag is always set to 0" - therefore I guess
> > you don't *need* to mask out the LT bit here? I assume this is just
> > belt-and-braces but thought I'd check incase I've misunderstood or if your
> > commit message is inaccurate.
> >
> > In any case masking out the bit (or adding a comment) makes this code more
> > readable as the reader doesn't need to know what the hardware does with this
> > bit.
>
> Actually vendor eventually responded that the bit was reserved, but
> during my tests it remains to 0.
>
> So yes I am masking this out mainly for belt-and-braces and legibility.
Thanks for the clarification.
>
> > > + if (!advk_pcie_link_up(pcie))
> > > + val |= (PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT << 16);
> > > + *value = val;
> > > + return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > case PCI_CAP_LIST_ID:
> > > case PCI_EXP_DEVCAP:
> > > case PCI_EXP_DEVCTL:
> > > case PCI_EXP_LNKCAP:
> > > - case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL:
> > > *value = advk_readl(pcie, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> > > return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> > > default:
> > > @@ -447,8 +469,13 @@ advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_write(struct pci_bridge_emul *bridge,
> > >
> > > switch (reg) {
> > > case PCI_EXP_DEVCTL:
> > > + advk_writel(pcie, new, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> > > + break;
> >
> > Why is this here?
> >
>
> Before PCI_EXP_DEVCTL and PCI_EXP_LNKCTL were doing the same thing, but
> as now PCI_EXP_LNKCTL does extra things (i.e. wait for link to
> successfully retrain), they do have different behaviours.
>
> So this is here so PCI_EXP_DEVCTL keeps its old behaviour and do not
> wait for link retrain in case an unrelated (PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RL) bit is
> set.
Oh yes, of course!
Thanks and:
Reviewed-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>
>
> --
> Remi
>
> > > +
> > > case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL:
> > > advk_writel(pcie, new, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> > > + if (new & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RL)
> > > + advk_pcie_wait_for_retrain(pcie);
> > > break;
> > >
> > > case PCI_EXP_RTCTL:
> > > --
> > > 2.20.1
> > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists