[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aQrKtFT0ldc70gKj@geday>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 00:55:32 -0300
From: Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel@...il.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kwilczynski@...nel.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.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,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] PCI: rockchip-host: drop wait on PERST# toggle
On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 12:10:38PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 03:27:25AM -0300, Geraldo Nascimento wrote:
> > With this change PCIe will complete link-training with a known quirky
> > device - Samsung OEM PM981a SSD. This is completely against the PCIe
> > spec and yet it works as long as the power regulator for 3v3 PCIe
> > power is not defined as always-on or boot-on.
>
> What is against the spec? In what way is this SSD "known quirky"? Is
> there a published erratum for it?
>
> Removing this delay might make this SSD work, but if this delay is
> required per PCIe spec, how can we be confident that other devices
> will still work?
>
> Reports of devices that still work is not really enough to move this
> from the "hack that makes one device work" column to the "safe and
> effective for all devices" column.
>
> It's easy to see how *lack* of a delay can break something, but much
> harder to imagine how *removing* a delay can make something work.
> Devices must be able to tolerate pretty much arbitrary delays.
Hi Bjorn!
I did some more testing, intrigued by why would a delay of more than
5 ms after the enablement of the power rails trigger failure in
initial link-training.
Something in my intuition kept telling me this was PERST# related,
and so I followed that rabbit-hole.
It seems the following change will allow the SSD to work with the
Rockchip-IP PCIe core without any other changes. So it is purely
a DT change and we are able to keep the mandatory 100ms delay
after driving PERST# low, as well as the always-on/boot-on
properties of the 3v3 power regulator.
This time everything is within the PCIe spec AFAICT, PERST# indeed
is an Open Drain signal, and indeed it does requires pull-up resistor
to maintain the drive after driving it high.
I'm still testing the overall stability of this, let's hope for the
best!
Thanks,
Geraldo Nascimento
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399pro-vmarc-som.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399pro-vmarc-som.dtsi
index aa70776e898a..1c5afc0413bc 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399pro-vmarc-som.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399pro-vmarc-som.dtsi
@@ -383,13 +383,14 @@ &pcie_phy {
};
&pcie0 {
- ep-gpios = <&gpio0 RK_PB4 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
+ ep-gpios = <&gpio0 RK_PB4 (GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
num-lanes = <4>;
- pinctrl-0 = <&pcie_clkreqnb_cpm>;
+ pinctrl-0 = <&pcie_clkreqnb_cpm>, <&pcie_perst>;
pinctrl-names = "default";
vpcie0v9-supply = <&vcca_0v9>; /* VCC_0V9_S0 */
vpcie1v8-supply = <&vcca_1v8>; /* VCC_1V8_S0 */
vpcie3v3-supply = <&vcc3v3_pcie>;
+ max-link-speed = <2>;
status = "okay";
};
@@ -408,6 +409,10 @@ pcie {
pcie_pwr: pcie-pwr {
rockchip,pins = <4 RK_PD4 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_up>;
};
+ pcie_perst: pcie-perst {
+ rockchip,pins = <0 RK_PB4 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_up>;
+ };
+
};
pmic {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists