[RFC PATCH V2 1/4] pci: APM X-Gene PCIe controller driver

[Bjorn Helgaas]

We're only seeing Arnd's side of the conversation on linux-pci.
Tanmay, are your messages being rejected because they're too "fancy",
per the definition here: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> On Friday 24 January 2014 13:28:22 Tanmay Inamdar wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Tanmay Inamdar <tinamdar at apm.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday 15 January 2014, Tanmay Inamdar wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >>> +static void xgene_pcie_poll_linkup(struct xgene_pcie_port *port, u32 *lanes)
>> >>> +{
>> >>> +     void *csr_base = port->csr_base;
>> >>> +     u32 val32;
>> >>> +     u64 start_time, time;
>> >>> +
>> >>> +     /*
>> >>> +      * A component enters the LTSSM Detect state within
>> >>> +      * 20ms of the end of fundamental core reset.
>> >>> +      */
>> >>> +     msleep(XGENE_LTSSM_DETECT_WAIT);
>> >>> +     port->link_up = 0;
>> >>> +     start_time = jiffies;
>> >>> +     do {
>> >>> +             val32 = readl(csr_base + PCIECORE_CTLANDSTATUS);
>> >>> +             if (val32 & LINK_UP_MASK) {
>> >>> +                     port->link_up = 1;
>> >>> +                     port->link_speed = PIPE_PHY_RATE_RD(val32);
>> >>> +                     val32 = readl(csr_base + BRIDGE_STATUS_0);
>> >>> +                     *lanes = val32 >> 26;
>> >>> +             }
>> >>> +             time = jiffies_to_msecs(jiffies - start_time);
>> >>> +     } while ((!port->link_up) || (time <= XGENE_LTSSM_L0_WAIT));
>> >>> +}
>> >>
>> >> Maybe another msleep() in the loop? It seems weird to first do an
>> >> unconditional sleep but then busy-wait for the result.
>> >
>> > ok.
>>
>> This loop can execute for maximum 4 msec. So putting msleep(1) won't
>> get us much.
>
> 4 msec is still quite a long time for a busy loop that can be spent doing
> useful work in another thread.
>
>> >>
>> >> Another general note: Your "compatible" strings are rather unspecific.
>> >> Do you have a version number for this IP block? I suppose that it's related
>> >> to one that has been used in other chips before, or will be used in future
>> >> chips, if it's not actually licensed from some other company.
>> >
>> > I will have to check this.
>> >
>>
>> We have decided to stick with current compatible string for now.
>
> Can you elaborate on your reasoning? Does this mean X-Gene is a one-off
> product and you won't be doing any new chips based on the same hardware
> components?
>
>         Arnd