[PATCH v2] PCI: cadence: Fix Gen2 Link Retraining process

[Vignesh Raghavendra]

Hi Bjorn,

On 29/03/23 22:38, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 08:11:25PM +0530, Raghavendra, Vignesh wrote:
>> Hi Lorenzo, Bjorn,
>>
>> On 3/15/2023 12:38 PM, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
>>> The Link Retraining process is initiated to account for the Gen2 defect in
>>> the Cadence PCIe controller in J721E SoC. The errata corresponding to this
>>> is i2085, documented at:
>>> https://www.ti.com/lit/er/sprz455c/sprz455c.pdf
>>>
>>> The existing workaround implemented for the errata waits for the Data Link
>>> initialization to complete and assumes that the link retraining process
>>> at the Physical Layer has completed. However, it is possible that the
>>> Physical Layer training might be ongoing as indicated by the
>>> PCI_EXP_LNKSTA_LT bit in the PCI_EXP_LNKSTA register.
>>>
>>> Fix the existing workaround, to ensure that the Physical Layer training
>>> has also completed, in addition to the Data Link initialization.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 4740b969aaf5 ("PCI: cadence: Retrain Link to work around Gen2 training defect")
>>> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli at ti.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr at ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes from v1:
>>> 1. Collect Reviewed-by tag from Vignesh Raghavendra.
>>> 2. Rebase on next-20230315.
>>>
>>> v1:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230102075656.260333-1-s-vadapalli@ti.com
>>>
>>>  .../controller/cadence/pcie-cadence-host.c    | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>
>> Wondering do one of you be pulling this patch in? This patch was never
>> picked for 6.3-rc1 merge cycle... Just want to make sure
>> pcie-cadence*.c and pci-j721e.c patches have a path to reach pci tree.
> 
> Yes, Lorenzo or Krzysztof will likely pick this up.  I think Lorenzo
> is out of the office this week.
> 

Thanks for clearing this up!

> Drive-by comment: the current patch doesn't seem to give any
> indication to the user when cdns_pcie_host_training_complete() times
> out.  Is that timeout potentially of interest to a user?  Should there
> be a log message there?
> 

Siddharth will follow up on this comment as a separate response

-- 
Regards
Vignesh