[RFC HACK PATCH] PCI: dwc: layerscape: Hack around enumeration problems with Honeycomb LX2K

Daniel Thompson daniel.thompson at linaro.org
Fri Dec 11 07:15:07 EST 2020


I have been chasing down a problem enumerating an NVMe drive on a
Honeycomb LX2K (NXP LX2160A). Specifically the drive can only enumerate
successfully if the we are emitting lots of console messages via a UART.
If the system is booted with `quiet` set then enumeration fails.

I guessed this would be due to the timing impact of printk-to-UART and
tried to find out where a delay could be added to provoke a successful
enumeration.

This patch contains the results. The delay length (1ms) was selected by
binary searching downwards until the delay was not effective for these
devices (Honeycomb LX2K and a Western Digital WD Blue SN550).

I have also included the workaround twice (conditionally compiled). The
first change is the *latest* possible code path that we can deploy a
delay whilst the second is the earliest place I could find.

The summary is that the critical window were we are currently relying on
a call to the console UART code can "mend" the driver runs from calling
dw_pcie_setup_rc() in host init to just before we read the state in the
link up callback.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson at linaro.org>
---

Notes:
    This patch is RFC (and HACK) because I don't have much clue *why* this
    patch works... merely that this is the smallest possible change I need
    to replicate the current accidental printk() workaround.  Perhaps one
    could argue that RFC here stands for request-for-clue.  All my
    observations and changes here are empirical and I don't know how best to
    turn them into something that is not a hack!
    
    BTW I noticed many other pcie-designware drivers take advantage
    of a function called dw_pcie_wait_for_link() in their init paths...
    but my naive attempts to add it to the layerscape driver results
    in non-booting systems so I haven't embarrassed myself by including
    that in the patch!

 drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-layerscape.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-layerscape.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-layerscape.c
index f24f79a70d9a..c354904b90ef 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-layerscape.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-layerscape.c
@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@

 #include "pcie-designware.h"

+#define WORKAROUND_LATEST_POSSIBLE
+
 /* PEX1/2 Misc Ports Status Register */
 #define SCFG_PEXMSCPORTSR(pex_idx)	(0x94 + (pex_idx) * 4)
 #define LTSSM_STATE_SHIFT	20
@@ -113,10 +115,31 @@ static int ls_pcie_link_up(struct dw_pcie *pci)
 	struct ls_pcie *pcie = to_ls_pcie(pci);
 	u32 state;

+	/*
+	 * Strictly speaking *this* (before the ioread32) is the latest
+	 * point a simple delay can be effective. If we move the delay
+	 * after the ioread32 then the NVMe does not enumerate.
+	 *
+	 * However this function appears to be frequently called so an
+	 * unconditional delay here causes noticeable delay at boot
+	 * time. Hence we implement the workaround by retrying the read
+	 * after a short delay if we think we might need to return false.
+	 */
+
 	state = (ioread32(pcie->lut + pcie->drvdata->lut_dbg) >>
 		 pcie->drvdata->ltssm_shift) &
 		 LTSSM_STATE_MASK;

+#ifdef WORKAROUND_LATEST_POSSIBLE
+	if (state < LTSSM_PCIE_L0) {
+		/* see comment above */
+		mdelay(1);
+		state = (ioread32(pcie->lut + pcie->drvdata->lut_dbg) >>
+			 pcie->drvdata->ltssm_shift) &
+			 LTSSM_STATE_MASK;
+	}
+#endif
+
 	if (state < LTSSM_PCIE_L0)
 		return 0;

@@ -152,6 +175,18 @@ static int ls_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)

 	dw_pcie_setup_rc(pp);

+#ifdef WORKAROUND_EARLIEST_POSSIBLE
+	/*
+	 * This is the earliest point the delay is effective.
+	 * If we move it before dw_pcie_setup_rc() then the
+	 * NVMe does not enumerate.
+	 *
+	 * 500us is too short to reliably work around the issue
+	 * hence adopting 1000us here.
+	 */
+	mdelay(1);
+#endif
+
 	return 0;
 }


base-commit: 0477e92881850d44910a7e94fc2c46f96faa131f
--
2.29.2




More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list