[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240822151658.GA305162@bhelgaas>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 10:16:58 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kw@...ux.com>,
lpieralisi@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: qcom-ep: Do not enable resources during probe()
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 12:18:23PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 05:56:18PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> ...
> > Although I do have the question of what happens if the RC deasserts
> > PERST# before qcom-ep is loaded. We probably don't execute
> > qcom_pcie_perst_deassert() in that case, so how does the init happen?
>
> PERST# is a level trigger signal. So even if the host has asserted
> it before EP booted, the level will stay low and ep will detect it
> while booting.
The PERST# signal itself is definitely level oriented.
I'm still skeptical about the *interrupt* from the PCIe controller
being level-triggered, as I mentioned here:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240815224735.GA57931@bhelgaas
tegra194 is also dwc-based and has a similar PERST# interrupt but it's
edge-triggered (tegra_pcie_ep_pex_rst_irq()), which I think is a
cleaner implementation. Then you don't have to remember the current
state, switch between high and low trigger, worry about races and
missing a pulse, etc.
> If it is an edge trigger signal, then ep wouldn't be able to catch
> it as you suspected.
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists