[PATCH v11] PCI: Xilinx-NWL-PCIe: Added support for Xilinx NWL PCIe Host Controller

[Bharat Kumar Gogada]

> Subject: Re: [PATCH v11] PCI: Xilinx-NWL-PCIe: Added support for Xilinx NWL
> PCIe Host Controller
> 
> [+cc Marc for irq_dispose_mapping() question]
> 
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:10:34PM +0000, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out what the difference is between these two checks and
> why you have both of them:
> 
> > +	if (bus->number == pcie->root_busno && devfn > 0)
> > +	if (bus->primary == pcie->root_busno && devfn > 0)
> 
> If I understand correctly, pcie->root_busno is the bus number of the Root
> Port device (likely 00).  I think the "bus->number ==
> pcie->root_busno && devfn > 0" check means that the Root Port, e.g.,
> 00:00.0, is the only device allowed on bus 00.  Often a Root Complex contains
> several Root Ports and other integrated devices that typically are on bus 00.
> But in your case, I think you're saying there is only the single Root Port and no
> other devices.
> 
> I think that first check takes care of everything on bus 00, so I'm trying to
> figure out what the second check is for.  Assume your Root Port is device
> 00:00.0 and it is a bridge to [bus 01-ff].  Then we have two pci_bus structs
> with these values:
> 
>   bus->number = 00
>   bus->primary = 00
>   bus->busn_res = [bus 00-ff]
> 
>   bus->number = 01
>   bus->primary = 00
>   bus->busn_res = [bus 01-ff]
> 
> Because of the first check, 00:00.0 is the only possible device on bus 00, and
> because of the second check, 01:00.0 is the only possible device on bus 01.
> Therefore, you don't support a multifunction device connected to the Root
> Port.  Right?
> 
We support multifunction devices also, so this check should not be there, will remove this check in next patch.

> > > > +		return false;
> > > > +
> > > > +	return true;
> > > > +}
> > > > + * nwl_setup_sspl - Set Slot Power limit
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @pcie: PCIe port information
> > > > + */
> > > > +static int nwl_setup_sspl(struct nwl_pcie *pcie)
> > > 
> > The Set_Slot_Power_Limit Message includes a one DW data payload. The
> > data payload is copied from the Slot Capabilities register of the
> > Downstream Port and is written into the Device Capabilities register
> > of the Upstream Port on the other side of the Link. Bits 9:8 of the
> > data payload map to the Slot Power Limit Scale field and bits 7:0 map
> > to the Slot Power Limit Value field. Bits 31:10 of the data payload
> > must be set to all 0's by the Transmitter and ignored by the Receiver.
> 
> > This Message is sent automatically by the Downstream Port (of a Root
> > Complex or a Switch) when one of the following events occurs:
> > -> On a Configuration Write to the Slot Capabilities register (see
> > Section 7.8.9) when the Data Link Layer reports DL_Up status.
> 
> I interpret this as meaning "the *hardware* automatically sends a
> Set_Slot_Power_Limit Message."  There's no mention of software doing
> anything other than the configuration write.
> 
> If your hardware doesn't do that, I think it's a defect.  It's fine to work around
> it, but we should have a comment to that effect so people don't copy the
> code to new drivers that don't need it.

Our hardware is not capable of doing it, so we are doing it software. Yes I will add some comments.

> 
> It's a little strange that 7.8.9 talks about writing to this register when all of its
> fields are HwInit and supposedly read-only.  I had assumed devices would
> use strapping or implementation-specific registers to set the Slot Power
> values, but maybe some devices use direct writes to Slot Capabilities instead.
> 
> BTW, I noticed a related lspci bug: it didn't decode the Capture Slot Power
> Limit in Device Capabilities of Endpoints.  I posted a fix for that separately.
> 
> The Slot Power Limit (in Slot Capabilities) indicates how much power the slot
> can supply to a downstream device.  That's a function of the platform design,
> so it seems like this is something you want to set via DT or some other
> mechanism that knows about the platform.
> Intercepting all config writes and updating it with whatever the caller supplies
> doesn't sound wise.  The value might be coming from setpci or some other
> source with no knowledge of the platform.

Agreed, but this is what can be done, it is difficult to determine who does what. 
> 
> > > > +			status = nwl_bridge_readl(pcie, TX_PCIE_MSG)
> > > > +						  & MSG_DONE_BIT;
> > > > +			if (status) {
> > > > +				status = nwl_bridge_readl(pcie,
> > > TX_PCIE_MSG)
> > > > +						  & MSG_DONE_STATUS_BIT;
> 
> > > It's not clear to me whether you need to re-read TX_PCIE_MSG here.
> >
> > MSG_DONE_BIT qualifies MSG_DONE_STATUS_BIT; so value of
> > MSG_DONE_STATUS_BIT is valid only when MSG_DONE_BIT = 1
> 
> That doesn't answer the question of whether another read is required.
> In fact, I would argue that if MSG_DONE_STATUS_BIT is only valid when
> MSG_DONE_BIT = 1, you *should* only do one read, because you want to
> capture both bits simultaneously so you know they're consistent, e.g.,
> 
>   status = nwl_bridge_readl(pcie, TX_PCIE_MSG);
>   if (status & MSG_DONE_BIT) {
>     if (status & MSG_DONE_STATUS_BIT)
>       ...
>   }
> 
> If you read the register twice, you always have to worry about what changes
> MSG_DONE_BIT, and how you guarantee that the second read happens
> before MSG_DONE_BIT changes.
>
Agreed, will do it in this way, once will also confirm with IP owner regarding both bits being updated parallel.
 
> > > > +		}
> > > > +	} while (status);
Bharat