lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V13 12/12] PCI: tegra: Add Tegra194 PCIe support
From
Date
On 7/16/2019 4:52 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:34:34PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>> +static int tegra_pcie_bpmp_set_ctrl_state(struct tegra_pcie_dw *pcie,
>>>>>> + bool enable)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct mrq_uphy_response resp;
>>>>>> + struct tegra_bpmp_message msg;
>>>>>> + struct mrq_uphy_request req;
>>>>>> + int err;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (pcie->cid == 5)
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with cid == 5 ? Explain please.
>>>> Controller with ID=5 doesn't need any programming to enable it which is
>>>> done here through calling firmware API.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> + memset(&req, 0, sizeof(req));
>>>>>> + memset(&resp, 0, sizeof(resp));
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + req.cmd = CMD_UPHY_PCIE_CONTROLLER_STATE;
>>>>>> + req.controller_state.pcie_controller = pcie->cid;
>>>>>> + req.controller_state.enable = enable;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + memset(&msg, 0, sizeof(msg));
>>>>>> + msg.mrq = MRQ_UPHY;
>>>>>> + msg.tx.data = &req;
>>>>>> + msg.tx.size = sizeof(req);
>>>>>> + msg.rx.data = &resp;
>>>>>> + msg.rx.size = sizeof(resp);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (irqs_disabled())
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you explain to me what this check is meant to achieve please ?
>>>> Firmware interface provides different APIs to be called when there are
>>>> no interrupts enabled in the system (noirq context) and otherwise
>>>> hence checking that situation here and calling appropriate API.
>>>
>>> That's what I am questioning. Being called from {suspend/resume}_noirq()
>>> callbacks (if that's the code path this check caters for) does not mean
>>> irqs_disabled() == true.
>> Agree.
>> Actually, I got a hint of having this check from the following.
>> Both tegra_bpmp_transfer_atomic() and tegra_bpmp_transfer() are indirectly
>> called by APIs registered with .master_xfer() and .master_xfer_atomic() hooks of
>> struct i2c_algorithm and the decision to call which one of these is made using the
>> following check in i2c-core.h file.
>> static inline bool i2c_in_atomic_xfer_mode(void)
>> {
>> return system_state > SYSTEM_RUNNING && irqs_disabled();
>> }
>> I think I should use this condition as is IIUC.
>> Please let me know if there are any concerns with this.
>
> It is not a concern, it is just that I don't understand how this code
> can be called with IRQs disabled, if you can give me an execution path I
> am happy to leave the check there. On top of that, when called from
> suspend NOIRQ context, it is likely to use the blocking API (because
> IRQs aren't disabled at CPU level) behind which there is most certainly
> an IRQ required to wake the thread up and if the IRQ in question was
> disabled in the suspend NOIRQ phase this code is likely to deadlock.
>
> I want to make sure we can justify adding this check, I do not
> want to add it because we think it can be needed when it may not
> be needed at all (and it gets copy and pasted over and over again
> in other drivers).
I had a discussion internally about this and the prescribed usage of these APIs
seem to be that
use tegra_bpmp_transfer() in .probe() and other paths where interrupts are
enabled as this API needs interrupts to be enabled for its working.
Use tegra_bpmp_transfer_atomic() surrounded by local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore()
in other paths where interrupt servicing is disabled.
I'll go ahead and make next patch series with this if this looks fine to you.

>
>>> Actually, if tegra_bpmp_transfer() requires IRQs to be enabled you may
>>> even end up in a situation where that blocking call does not wake up
>>> because the IRQ in question was disabled in the NOIRQ suspend/resume
>>> phase.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> +static int tegra_pcie_dw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + const struct tegra_pcie_soc *data;
>>>>>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>>>> + struct resource *atu_dma_res;
>>>>>> + struct tegra_pcie_dw *pcie;
>>>>>> + struct resource *dbi_res;
>>>>>> + struct pcie_port *pp;
>>>>>> + struct dw_pcie *pci;
>>>>>> + struct phy **phys;
>>>>>> + char *name;
>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>> + u32 i;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pcie = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pcie), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>> + if (!pcie)
>>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pci = &pcie->pci;
>>>>>> + pci->dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>>>> + pci->ops = &tegra_dw_pcie_ops;
>>>>>> + pp = &pci->pp;
>>>>>> + pcie->dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + data = (struct tegra_pcie_soc *)of_device_get_match_data(dev);
>>>>>> + if (!data)
>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> + pcie->mode = (enum dw_pcie_device_mode)data->mode;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + ret = tegra_pcie_dw_parse_dt(pcie);
>>>>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to parse device tree: %d\n", ret);
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pcie->pex_ctl_supply = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vddio-pex-ctl");
>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(pcie->pex_ctl_supply)) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get regulator: %ld\n",
>>>>>> + PTR_ERR(pcie->pex_ctl_supply));
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(pcie->pex_ctl_supply);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pcie->core_clk = devm_clk_get(dev, "core");
>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(pcie->core_clk)) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get core clock: %ld\n",
>>>>>> + PTR_ERR(pcie->core_clk));
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(pcie->core_clk);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pcie->appl_res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>>>>>> + "appl");
>>>>>> + if (!pcie->appl_res) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to find \"appl\" region\n");
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(pcie->appl_res);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + pcie->appl_base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, pcie->appl_res);
>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(pcie->appl_base))
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(pcie->appl_base);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pcie->core_apb_rst = devm_reset_control_get(dev, "apb");
>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(pcie->core_apb_rst)) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get APB reset: %ld\n",
>>>>>> + PTR_ERR(pcie->core_apb_rst));
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(pcie->core_apb_rst);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + phys = devm_kcalloc(dev, pcie->phy_count, sizeof(*phys), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>> + if (!phys)
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(phys);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < pcie->phy_count; i++) {
>>>>>> + name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "p2u-%u", i);
>>>>>> + if (!name) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to create P2U string\n");
>>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + phys[i] = devm_phy_get(dev, name);
>>>>>> + kfree(name);
>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(phys[i])) {
>>>>>> + ret = PTR_ERR(phys[i]);
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get PHY: %d\n", ret);
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pcie->phys = phys;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + dbi_res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "dbi");
>>>>>> + if (!dbi_res) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to find \"dbi\" region\n");
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(dbi_res);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + pcie->dbi_res = dbi_res;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pci->dbi_base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, dbi_res);
>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(pci->dbi_base))
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(pci->dbi_base);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /* Tegra HW locates DBI2 at a fixed offset from DBI */
>>>>>> + pci->dbi_base2 = pci->dbi_base + 0x1000;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + atu_dma_res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>>>>>> + "atu_dma");
>>>>>> + if (!atu_dma_res) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to find \"atu_dma\" region\n");
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(atu_dma_res);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + pcie->atu_dma_res = atu_dma_res;
>>>>>> + pci->atu_base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, atu_dma_res);
>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(pci->atu_base))
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(pci->atu_base);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pcie->core_rst = devm_reset_control_get(dev, "core");
>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(pcie->core_rst)) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get core reset: %ld\n",
>>>>>> + PTR_ERR(pcie->core_rst));
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(pcie->core_rst);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pp->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "intr");
>>>>>> + if (!pp->irq) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get \"intr\" interrupt\n");
>>>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + ret = devm_request_irq(dev, pp->irq, tegra_pcie_irq_handler,
>>>>>> + IRQF_SHARED, "tegra-pcie-intr", pcie);
>>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to request IRQ %d: %d\n", pp->irq, ret);
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + pcie->bpmp = tegra_bpmp_get(dev);
>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(pcie->bpmp))
>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(pcie->bpmp);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pcie);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (pcie->mode == DW_PCIE_RC_TYPE) {
>>>>>> + ret = tegra_pcie_config_rp(pcie);
>>>>>> + if (ret && ret != -ENOMEDIUM)
>>>>>> + goto fail;
>>>>>> + else
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> So if the link is not up we still go ahead and make probe
>>>>> succeed. What for ?
>>>> We may need root port to be available to support hot-plugging of
>>>> endpoint devices, so, we don't fail the probe.
>>>
>>> We need it or we don't. If you do support hotplugging of endpoint
>>> devices point me at the code, otherwise link up failure means
>>> failure to probe.
>> Currently hotplugging of endpoint is not supported, but it is one of
>> the use cases that we may add support for in future.
>
> You should elaborate on this, I do not understand what you mean,
> either the root port(s) supports hotplug or it does not.
>
>> But, why should we fail probe if link up doesn't happen? As such,
>> nothing went wrong in terms of root port initialization right? I
>> checked other DWC based implementations and following are not failing
>> the probe pci-dra7xx.c, pcie-armada8k.c, pcie-artpec6.c, pcie-histb.c,
>> pcie-kirin.c, pcie-spear13xx.c, pci-exynos.c, pci-imx6.c,
>> pci-keystone.c, pci-layerscape.c
>>
>> Although following do fail the probe if link is not up. pcie-qcom.c,
>> pcie-uniphier.c, pci-meson.c
>>
>> So, to me, it looks more like a choice we can make whether to fail the
>> probe or not and in this case we are choosing not to fail.
>
> I disagree. I had an offline chat with Bjorn and whether link-up should
> fail the probe or not depends on whether the root port(s) is hotplug
> capable or not and this in turn relies on the root port "Slot
> implemented" bit in the PCI Express capabilities register.
>
> It is a choice but it should be based on evidence.
>
> Lorenzo
With Bjorn's latest comment on top of this, I think we are good not to fail
the probe here.

- Vidya Sagar
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-23 16:46    [W:0.136 / U:4.204 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site