Message ID | 20241017030412.265000-7-quic_qianyu@quicinc.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | Add support for PCIe3 on x1e80100 | expand |
Please use a more concise subject (e.g. try to stay within 72 chars) than: PCI: qcom: Disable ASPM L0s and remove BDF2SID mapping config for X1E80100 SoC Here you could drop "SoC", maybe "ASPM" and "config" for example. On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 08:04:11PM -0700, Qiang Yu wrote: > Currently, the cfg_1_9_0 which is being used for X1E80100 has config_sid > callback in its ops and doesn't disable ASPM L0s. However, as same as > SC8280X, PCIe controllers on X1E80100 are connected to SMMUv3, hence don't > need config_sid() callback and hardware team has recommended to disable > L0s as it is broken in the controller. Hence reuse cfg_sc8280xp for > X1E80100. Since the x1e80100 dtsi, like sc8280xp, do not specify an iommu-map, that bit is effectively just a cleanup and all this patch does is to disable L0s. Please rephrase to make this clear. This will also allow you to make the Subject even shorter (no need to mention the SID bit in Subject). Also say something about how L0s is broken so that it is more clear what the effect of this patch is. On sc8280xp enabling L0s lead to correctable errors for example. > Fixes: 6d0c39324c5f ("PCI: qcom: Add X1E80100 PCIe support") > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Johan
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 08:15:05AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 01:54:59PM +0800, Qiang Yu wrote: > > On 10/24/2024 2:42 PM, Qiang Yu wrote: > > > On 10/18/2024 10:06 PM, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > >> Also say something about how L0s is broken so that it is more clear what > > >> the effect of this patch is. On sc8280xp enabling L0s lead to > > >> correctable errors for example. > > > > Need more time to confirm the exact reason about disabling L0s. > > > Will update if get any progress > > > I confirmed with HW team and SW team. L0s is not supported on X1E80100, > > it is not fully verified. So we don't want to enable it. > > Thanks for checking. A word about what can happen if not disabling it > may still be in place (e.g. the link state transition stats in debugfs > on x1e80100 looked pretty erratic with L0s enabled IIRC). > > Also, are there any Qualcomm platforms that actually support L0s? > Perhaps we should just disable it everywhere? > Most of the mobile chipsets from Qcom support L0s. It is not supported only on the compute ones. So we cannot disable it everywhere. Again, it is not the hw issue but the PHY init sequence not tuned support L0s. - Mani
On 10/30/2024 3:42 PM, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 12:48:51PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 08:15:05AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: >>> Also, are there any Qualcomm platforms that actually support L0s? >>> Perhaps we should just disable it everywhere? >> Most of the mobile chipsets from Qcom support L0s. It is not supported only on >> the compute ones. So we cannot disable it everywhere. >> >> Again, it is not the hw issue but the PHY init sequence not tuned support L0s. > Right, this should be mentioned in the commit message. OK, I got it. Will write this into commit message. Thanks, Qiang Yu > > Johan
diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c index 468bd4242e61..c533e6024ba2 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c @@ -1847,7 +1847,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_pcie_match[] = { { .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8450-pcie0", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 }, { .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8450-pcie1", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 }, { .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8550", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 }, - { .compatible = "qcom,pcie-x1e80100", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 }, + { .compatible = "qcom,pcie-x1e80100", .data = &cfg_sc8280xp }, { } };