[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230414201413.GA215912@bhelgaas>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 15:14:13 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@...il.com>
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Cyril Brulebois <kibi@...ian.org>,
Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, james.quinlan@...adcom.com,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kw@...ux.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM7XXX ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: PCI: brcmstb: Add two optional props
It'd be nice to mention the property names (maybe omit the "brcm,"
prefix if that helps) in the commit log so "git log --oneline" is more
useful:
959e000f0463 ("dt-bindings: PCI: brcmstb: Add two optional props")
ea372f45cfff ("dt-bindings: PCI: Add bindings for Brcmstb EP voltage regulators")
504253e44a9d ("dt-bindings: PCI: Correct brcmstb interrupts, interrupt-map.")
145790e55d82 ("dt-bindings: PCI: Add compatible string for Brcmstb 74[23]5 MIPs SOCs")
5e8a7d26d935 ("dt-bindings: PCI: brcmstb: compatible is required")
f435ce7ebf8c ("dt-bindings: PCI: brcmstb: add BCM4908 binding")
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:59:16PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> Regarding "brcm,enable-l1ss":
>
> The Broadcom STB/CM PCIe HW -- a core that is also used by RPi SOCs --
> requires the driver probe() to deliberately place the HW one of three
> CLKREQ# modes:
>
> (a) CLKREQ# driven by the RC unconditionally
> (b) CLKREQ# driven by the EP for ASPM L0s, L1
> (c) Bidirectional CLKREQ#, as used for L1 Substates (L1SS).
>
> The HW+driver can tell the difference between downstream devices that
> need (a) and (b), but does not know when to configure (c). Further, the
> HW may cause a CPU abort on boot if guesses wrong regarding the need for
> (c). So we introduce the boolean "brcm,enable-l1ss" property to indicate
> that (c) is desired. Setting this property only makes sense when the
> downstream device is L1SS-capable and the OS is configured to activate
> this mode (e.g. policy==superpowersave).
>
> This property is already present in the Raspian version of Linux, but the
> upstream driver implementaion that will follow adds more details and
> discerns between (a) and (b).
>
> Regarding "brcm,completion-timeout-us"
>
> Our HW will cause a CPU abort if the L1SS exit time is longer than the
> PCIe transaction completion abort timeout. We've been asked to make this
> configurable, so we are introducing "brcm,completion-timeout-us".
Completion Timeout is a generic PCIe concept. Do we want a generic
(non-brcm) name that would be documented elsewhere? Rob?
> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@...il.com>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> index 7e15aae7d69e..f7fc2f6561bb 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> @@ -64,6 +64,22 @@ properties:
>
> aspm-no-l0s: true
>
> + brcm,enable-l1ss:
> + description: Indicates that PCIe L1SS power savings
> + are desired, the downstream device is L1SS-capable, and the
> + OS has been configured to enable this mode. Note that when
> + in this mode, this particular HW may not meet the requirement
> + that requires CLKREQ# assertion to clock active to be
> + within 400ns.
Maybe a pointer to the source of the 400ns requirement?
"requirement that requires" is a little redundant, maybe "... may not
meet the requirement that Refclk be valid within 400ns of CLKREQ#
assertion"?
(I don't actually know whether this refers to Refclk or if that would
be a true statement; this is just a possible sentence structure.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists