On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Remi Pommarel wrote:
> Aardvark's PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT flag in its link status register is not
> implemented and does not reflect the actual link training state (the
> flag is always set to 0). In order to support link re-training feature
> this flag has to be emulated. The Link Training and Status State
> Machine (LTSSM) flag in Aardvark LMI config register could be used as
> a link training indicator. Indeed if the LTSSM is in L0 or upper state
> then link training has completed (see [1]).
>
> Unfortunately because after asking a link retraining it takes a while
> for the LTSSM state to become less than 0x10 (due to L0s to recovery
> state transition delays), LTSSM can still be in L0 while link training
> has not finished yet. So this waits for link to be in recovery or lesser
> state before returning after asking for a link retrain.
>
> [1] "PCI Express Base Specification", REV. 4.0
> PCI Express, February 19 2014, Table 4-14
>
> Signed-off-by: Remi Pommarel <r...@triplefau.lt>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> - Rename retraining flag field
> - Fix DEVCTL register writing
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Rewrite patch logic so it is more legible
>
> Please note that I will unlikely be able to answer any comments from May
> 24th to June 10th.
> ---
> drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> index 134e0306ff00..8803083b2174 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> @@ -180,6 +180,8 @@
> #define LINK_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 10
> #define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN 90000
> #define LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX 100000
> +#define RETRAIN_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 10
> +#define RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_US 2000
>
> #define MSI_IRQ_NUM 32
>
> @@ -239,6 +241,17 @@ static int advk_pcie_wait_for_link(struct advk_pcie
> *pcie)
> return -ETIMEDOUT;
> }
>
> +static void advk_pcie_wait_for_retrain(struct advk_pcie *pcie)
> +{
> + size_t retries;
> +
> + for (retries = 0; retries < RETRAIN_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES; ++retries) {
> + if (!advk_pcie_link_up(pcie))
> + break;
> + udelay(RETRAIN_WAIT_USLEEP_US);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void advk_pcie_setup_hw(struct advk_pcie *pcie)
> {
> u32 reg;
> @@ -426,11 +439,20 @@ advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_read(struct
> pci_bridge_emul *bridge,
> return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> }
>
> + case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL: {
> + /* u32 contains both PCI_EXP_LNKCTL and PCI_EXP_LNKSTA */
> + u32 val = advk_readl(pcie, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg) &
> + ~(PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT << 16);
The commit message says "the flag is always set to 0" - therefore I guess
you don't *need* to mask out the LT bit here? I assume this is just
belt-and-braces but thought I'd check incase I've misunderstood or if your
commit message is inaccurate.
In any case masking out the bit (or adding a comment) makes this code more
readable as the reader doesn't need to know what the hardware does with this
bit.
> + if (!advk_pcie_link_up(pcie))
> + val |= (PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT << 16);
> + *value = val;
> + return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> + }
> +
> case PCI_CAP_LIST_ID:
> case PCI_EXP_DEVCAP:
> case PCI_EXP_DEVCTL:
> case PCI_EXP_LNKCAP:
> - case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL:
> *value = advk_readl(pcie, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> return PCI_BRIDGE_EMUL_HANDLED;
> default:
> @@ -447,8 +469,13 @@ advk_pci_bridge_emul_pcie_conf_write(struct
> pci_bridge_emul *bridge,
>
> switch (reg) {
> case PCI_EXP_DEVCTL:
> + advk_writel(pcie, new, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> + break;
Why is this here?
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
> +
> case PCI_EXP_LNKCTL:
> advk_writel(pcie, new, PCIE_CORE_PCIEXP_CAP + reg);
> + if (new & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RL)
> + advk_pcie_wait_for_retrain(pcie);
> break;
>
> case PCI_EXP_RTCTL:
> --
> 2.20.1
>
