lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] PCI: qcom: fix IPQ8074 Gen2 support
From
On 22/06/2022 00:16, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 11:45:12PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 23:32, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 01:23:30PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
>>>> IPQ8074 has one Gen2 and one Gen3 port, currently the Gen2 port will
>>>> cause the system to hang as its using DBI registers in the .init
>>>> and those are only accesible after phy_power_on().
>>>
>>> Is the fact that IPQ8074 has both a Gen2 and a Gen3 port relevant to
>>> this patch? I don't see the connection.
>>>
>>> I see that qcom_pcie_host_init() does:
>>>
>>> qcom_pcie_host_init
>>> pcie->cfg->ops->init(pcie)
>>> phy_power_on(pcie->phy)
>>> pcie->cfg->ops->post_init(pcie)
>>>
>>> and that you're moving DBI register accesses from
>>> qcom_pcie_init_2_3_3() to qcom_pcie_post_init_2_3_3().
>>>
>>> But I also see DBI register accesses in other .init() functions:
>>>
>>> qcom_pcie_init_2_1_0
>>> qcom_pcie_init_1_0_0 (oddly out of order)
>>> qcom_pcie_init_2_3_2
>>> qcom_pcie_init_2_4_0
>>>
>>> Why do these accesses not need to be moved? I assume it's because
>>> pcie->phy is an optional PHY and phy_power_on() does nothing on those
>>> controllers?
>>>
>>> Whatever the reason, I think the DBI accesses should be done
>>> consistently in .post_init(). I see that Dmitry's previous patches
>>> removed all those .post_init() functions, but I think the consistency
>>> is worth having.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we could reorder the patches so this patch comes first, moves
>>> the DBI accesses into .post_init(), then Dmitry's patches could be
>>> rebased on top to drop the clock handling?
>>
>> I don't think there is a need to reorder patches. My patches do not
>> remove support for post_init(), they drop the callbacks code. Thus one
>> can reinstate necessary code back.
>
> There's not a *need* to reorder them, but I think it would make the
> patches smaller and more readable because we wouldn't be removing and
> then re-adding the functions.

Ack. I'm fine then with rebasing my patches on top of Robert's patchset.
I'll send the next revision after getting this patchset into the form.

--
With best wishes
Dmitry

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-22 09:04    [W:0.100 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site