[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2442936e-a53e-59bf-488f-95eac26d1252@ghiti.fr>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 14:49:41 +0100
From: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
To: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@...ive.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>,
David Abdurachmanov <david.abdurachmanov@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [V3] PCI: fu740: Drop to 2.5GT/s to fix initial device probing on
some boards
Hi Ben,
On 3/18/22 16:24, Ben Dooks wrote:
> The fu740 PCIe core does not probe any devices on the SiFive Unmatched
> board without this fix (or having U-Boot explicitly start the PCIe via
> either boot-script or user command). The fix is to start the link at
> 2.5GT/s speeds and once the link is up then change the maximum speed back
> to the default.
>
> The U-Boot driver claims to set the link-speed to 2.5GT/s to get the probe
> to work (and U-Boot does print link up at 2.5GT/s) in the following code:
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/master/drivers/pci/pcie_dw_sifive.c?id=v2022.01#L271
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
> --
> Note, this patch has had significant re-work since the previous 4
> sets, including trying to fix style, message, reliance on the U-Boot
> fix and the comments about usage of LINK_CAP and reserved fields.
>
> v2:
> - fix issues with Gen1/2.5GTs
> - updated comment on the initial probe
> - run tests with both uninitialised and initialsed pcie from uboot
> ---
> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-fu740.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-fu740.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-fu740.c
> index 842b7202b96e..ecac0364178a 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-fu740.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-fu740.c
> @@ -181,10 +181,60 @@ static int fu740_pcie_start_link(struct dw_pcie *pci)
> {
> struct device *dev = pci->dev;
> struct fu740_pcie *afp = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + u8 cap_exp = dw_pcie_find_capability(pci, PCI_CAP_ID_EXP);
> + int ret;
> + u32 orig, tmp;
> +
> + /*
> + * Force 2.5GT/s when starting the link, due to some devices not
> + * probing at higher speeds. This happens with the PCIe switch
> + * on the Unmatched board when U-Boot has not initialised the PCIe.
> + * The fix in U-Boot is to force 2.5GT/s, which then gets cleared
> + * by the soft reset does by this driver.
> + */
> +
> + dev_dbg(dev, "cap_exp at %x\n", cap_exp);
> + dw_pcie_dbi_ro_wr_en(pci);
> +
> + tmp = dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, cap_exp + PCI_EXP_LNKCAP);
> + orig = tmp & PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS;
> + tmp &= ~PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS;
> + tmp |= PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS_2_5GB;
> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, cap_exp + PCI_EXP_LNKCAP, tmp);
>
> /* Enable LTSSM */
> writel_relaxed(0x1, afp->mgmt_base + PCIEX8MGMT_APP_LTSSM_ENABLE);
> - return 0;
> +
> + ret = dw_pcie_wait_for_link(pci);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "error: link did not start\n");
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + tmp = dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, cap_exp + PCI_EXP_LNKCAP);
> + if ((tmp & PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS) != orig) {
> + dev_dbg(dev, "changing speed back to original\n");
> +
> + tmp &= ~PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS;
> + tmp |= orig;
> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, cap_exp + PCI_EXP_LNKCAP, tmp);
> +
> + tmp = dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, PCIE_LINK_WIDTH_SPEED_CONTROL);
> + tmp |= PORT_LOGIC_SPEED_CHANGE;
> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, PCIE_LINK_WIDTH_SPEED_CONTROL, tmp);
> +
> + ret = dw_pcie_wait_for_link(pci);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "error: link did not start at new speed\n");
> + goto err;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + ret = 0;
> +err:
> + WARN_ON(ret); /* we assume that errors will be very rare */
> + dw_pcie_dbi_ro_wr_dis(pci);
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static int fu740_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
+cc Maciej and David as there is this other fix that seems to do the
same but differently, it's been under review for some time now:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220302000043.GA662523@bhelgaas/t/
I fell onto this issue recently, I'll give your patch and the above a
try soon.
Thanks
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists