[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220708191709.GA366918@bhelgaas>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 14:17:09 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc: Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>,
Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...sol.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
lpieralisi@...nel.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, kw@...ux.com,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
jingoohan1@...il.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
johan+linaro@...nel.org,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] PCI: qcom: Move all DBI register accesses after
phy_power_on()
On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 07:02:48PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 06:47:57PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 06:39:37PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 21:41, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:44:20PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
> > > > > IPQ8074 requires the PHY to be powered on before accessing DBI registers.
> > > > > It's not clear whether other variants have the same dependency, but there
> > > > > seems to be no reason for them to be different, so move all the DBI
> > > > > accesses from .init() to .post_init() so they are all after phy_power_on().
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>
> > > >
> > > > Would any of the qcom driver folks care to review and ack this?
> > > > Stanimir, Andy, Bjorn A (from get_maintainer.pl)?
> >
> > Hi Bjorn,
> > I tested this on ipq806x and the current patch cause regression as pci
> > doesn't work anymore...
> > This is a before the patch [1] and this is an after [2].
> >
> > As you notice the main problem here is
> > [ 2.559962] qcom-pcie 1b700000.pci: Phy link never came up
> >
> > The cause of this has already been bisected and actually it was a fixup
> > pushed some time ago for 2_1_0.
> >
> > Uboot can leave the pci in an underfined state and this
> > writel(1, pcie->parf + PCIE20_PARF_PHY_CTRL);
> > is never called.
> >
> > This is mandatory to a correct init and MUST be called before regulator
> > enable and reset deassert or the "Phy link never came up" problem is
> > triggered.
> >
> > So to fix this we just have to have
> > writel(1, pcie->parf + PCIE20_PARF_PHY_CTRL);
> > in qcom_pcie_init_2_1_0 right after the reset_contro_assert.
> >
> > This command is also present in qcom_pcie_init_2_3_2 where the same
> > exact reg is written so I assume 2_3_2 have the same regression and the
> > write must be placed in init and can't be moved to post_init.
> >
> > Feel free to tell me how to proceed if I should post an additional patch
> > or you prefer Robi to respin this with the few lines reverted.
> >
> > [1] https://gist.github.com/Ansuel/ec827319e585630356fc586273db6f0d
> > [2] https://gist.github.com/Ansuel/63fbcab2681cd28a61ec52d7874fa30d
>
> While testing this I notice something odd...
>
> 2_4_2 prepare the pipe clock only AFTER PCIe clocks and reset are
> enabled while in 2_1_0... That made me think there could be a problem
> with the current code of 2_1_0... A quick change made me discover that
> the problem is actually that we enable prepare_enable clock BEFORE the
> value is written in PCIE20_PARF_PHY_CTRL.
>
> By moving the clk_bulk_prepare_enable after the "enable PCIe clocks and
> resets" make the pci work with the current change...
>
> So it could be that the current changes are correct and it's really just
> a bug in 2_1_0 enabling clock before writing the correct value...
>
> Tell me how to proceed... think at this point a good idea would be to
> create a separate patch and fix this for good.
Hmm, I think I made a mistake when I put this patch in the middle and
applied other stuff on top of it. I'd like to just postpone this
patch while we work out these issues, but I think it's not completely
trivial since it's in the middle. I'll try to straighten this out
next week.
> Also bonus question, should I drop the bulk_prepare_enable and follow
> the pattern of 2_3_2 and enable aux, cfg, master and slave in init and
> pipe in post init or I can keep it? (still have to test but I assume
> that it will work.)
I haven't looked at the code again, but will just offer the opinion
that unnecessary differences in structure often hide bugs, and they're
always minor speed bumps for readers.
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists