linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] PCI: rockchip-host: Retry link training on failure without PERST#

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: <20250610184449.GA819185@bhelgaas>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:44:49 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel@...il.com>
Cc: linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
	Hugh Cole-Baker <sigmaris@...il.com>,
	Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] PCI: rockchip-host: Retry link training on
 failure without PERST#

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 01:37:12PM -0300, Geraldo Nascimento wrote:
> After almost 30 days of battling with RK3399 buggy PCIe on my Rock Pi
> N10 through trial-and-error debugging, I finally got positive results
> with enumeration on the PCI bus for both a Realtek 8111E NIC and a
> Samsung PM981a SSD.

> +static int rockchip_pcie_set_vpcie(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = rockchip->dev;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie12v)) {
> +		err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie12v);
> +		if (err) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie12v regulator\n");
> +			goto err_out;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) {
> +		err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie3v3);
> +		if (err) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie3v3 regulator\n");
> +			goto err_disable_12v;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie1v8);
> +	if (err) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie1v8 regulator\n");
> +		goto err_disable_3v3;
> +	}
> +
> +	err = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie0v9);
> +	if (err) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie0v9 regulator\n");
> +		goto err_disable_1v8;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +
> +err_disable_1v8:
> +	regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie1v8);
> +err_disable_3v3:
> +	if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3))
> +		regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie3v3);
> +err_disable_12v:
> +	if (!IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie12v))
> +		regulator_disable(rockchip->vpcie12v);
> +err_out:
> +	return err;
> +}

This *looks* like it could be strictly a move of
rockchip_pcie_set_vpcie(), without changing it at all.

If that's the case, please make the move a separate patch so it's more
obvious what the interesting changes that actually make a difference
are.