lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [2]   [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 7/30/2019 9:19 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:14:08PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Why tegra_bpmp_transfer_atomic() needs IRQs to be disabled ? And why
> is it needed in this piece of code where IRQs are _never_ disabled
> at CPU level ?
>
> IRQs are enabled when you call a suspend_noirq() callback, so the
> blocking API can be used as long as the IRQ descriptor backing
> the IRQ that will wake-up the blocked call is marked as
> IRQF_NO_SUSPEND.
>
> The problem is not IRQs enabled/disabled at CPU level, the problem is
> the IRQ descriptor of the IRQ required to handle the blocking BPMP call,
> mark it as IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and remove the tegra_bpmp_transfer_atomic()
> call from this code (or please give me a concrete example pinpointing
> why it is needed).
Ideally, using tegra_bpmp_transfer() alone in all paths (.probe() as well as .resume_noirq())
should have worked as the corresponding IRQ is already flagged as IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, but,
because of the way BPMP-FW driver in kernel making its interface available through .resume_early(),
tegra_bpmp_transfer() wasn't working as expected and I pushed a patch (CC'ing you) at
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1140973/ to make it .resume_noirq() from .resume_early().
With that in place, we can just use tegra_bpmp_trasnfer().
I'll push a new patch with this change once my BPMP-FW driver patch is approved.

Thanks,
Vidya Sagar
>
> Thanks,
> Lorenzo
>
>> 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: 2019-08-02 14:07    [W:0.090 / U:7.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site