linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] PCI: dwc: Improve handling of PCIe lane configuration

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250214090951.wrjk6miyfq5twqph@thinkpad>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 14:39:51 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To: Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <krishna.chundru@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	quic_mrana@...cinc.com, quic_vbadigan@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] PCI: dwc: Improve handling of PCIe lane
 configuration

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 01:00:02PM +0530, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
> Currently even if the number of lanes hardware supports is equal to
> the number lanes provided in the devicetree, the driver is trying to
> configure again the maximum number of lanes which is not needed.
> 
> Update number of lanes only when it is not equal to hardware capability.
> 
> And also if the num-lanes property is not present in the devicetree
> update the num_lanes with the maximum hardware supports.
> 
> Introduce dw_pcie_link_get_max_link_width() to get the maximum lane
> width the hardware supports.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <krishna.chundru@....qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c |  3 +++
>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c      | 11 ++++++++++-
>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h      |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
> index ffaded8f2df7..dd56cc02f4ef 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
> @@ -504,6 +504,9 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct dw_pcie_rp *pp)
>  
>  	dw_pcie_iatu_detect(pci);
>  
> +	if (pci->num_lanes < 1)
> +		pci->num_lanes = dw_pcie_link_get_max_link_width(pci);
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Allocate the resource for MSG TLP before programming the iATU
>  	 * outbound window in dw_pcie_setup_rc(). Since the allocation depends
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> index 145e7f579072..967c62cf3db0 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> @@ -737,12 +737,21 @@ static void dw_pcie_link_set_max_speed(struct dw_pcie *pci)
>  
>  }
>  
> +int dw_pcie_link_get_max_link_width(struct dw_pcie *pci)
> +{
> +	u8 cap = dw_pcie_find_capability(pci, PCI_CAP_ID_EXP);
> +	u32 lnkcap = dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, cap + PCI_EXP_LNKCAP);
> +
> +	return FIELD_GET(PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_MLW, lnkcap);
> +}
> +
>  static void dw_pcie_link_set_max_link_width(struct dw_pcie *pci, u32 num_lanes)
>  {
> +	int max_lanes = dw_pcie_link_get_max_link_width(pci);
>  	u32 lnkcap, lwsc, plc;
>  	u8 cap;
>  
> -	if (!num_lanes)
> +	if (!num_lanes || max_lanes == num_lanes)

Is the first condition still valid?

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்