[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220919224014.GA1030798@bhelgaas>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 17:40:14 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>
Cc: jingoohan1@...il.com, gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com,
lpieralisi@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, mani@...nel.org,
Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru, dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org,
linmq006@...il.com, ffclaire1224@...il.com,
thierry.reding@...il.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kthota@...dia.com,
mmaddireddy@...dia.com, sagar.tv@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/3] PCI: designware-ep: Fix DBI access before core
init
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 12:03:39AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> This series attempts to fix the issue with core register (Ex:- DBI) accesses
> causing system hang issues in platforms where there is a dependency on the
> availability of PCIe Reference clock from the host for their core
> initialization.
> This series is verified on Tegra194 & Tegra234 platforms.
I think this design is just kind of weird, specifically, the fact that
setting .core_init_notifier makes dw_pcie_ep_init() bail out early.
The usual pattern is more like "if the specific driver sets this
function pointer, the generic code calls it."
The name "dw_pcie_ep_init_complete()" is not as helpful as it could
be: it tells us something about what has happened before this point,
but it doesn't tell us anything about what dw_pcie_ep_init_complete()
*does*.
Same thing with dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() -- it doesn't tell us
anything about what the function *does*. I see that it calls
pci_epc_init_notify(), which calls a notifier call chain (currently
always empty except for a test case). I think pci_epc_linkup() is a
better name because it says something about what's happening: the link
is now up and we're telling somebody about it. "pci_epc_init_notify()"
doesn't convey that. "pci_epc_core_initialized()" might.
It looks like both qcom and tegra wait for an interrupt before calling
dw_pcie_ep_init_notify(), but I'm a little concerned because I can't
figure out what specifically they do to start the process that
ultimately generates the interrupt. Presumably they request the IRQ
*before* starting the process, but there's not much between the
devm_request_threaded_irq() and the interrupt handler, which makes me
wonder if both are racy.
> Manivannan, could you please verify on qcom platforms?
>
> V4:
> * Addressed review comments from Bjorn and Manivannan
> * Added .ep_init_late() ops
> * Added patches to refactor code in qcom and tegra platforms
>
> Vidya Sagar (3):
> PCI: designware-ep: Fix DBI access before core init
> PCI: qcom-ep: Refactor EP initialization completion
> PCI: tegra194: Refactor EP initialization completion
>
> .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c | 112 ++++++++++--------
> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 10 +-
> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c | 27 +++--
> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-tegra194.c | 4 +-
> 4 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists