Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI: rockchip-host: comment danger of 5.0 GT/s speed

[Dragan Simic]

On Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:51 CET, Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 10:30:49AM +0100, Dragan Simic wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:10 CET, Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > According to Rockchip sources, there is grave danger in enabling 5.0
> > > GT/s speed for this core. Add a comment documenting that danger and
> > > discouraging end-users from forcing higher speed through DT changes.
> > > 
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ffd05070-9879-4468-94e3-b88968b4c21b@rock-chips.com/
> > > Reported-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin at rock-chips.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c | 5 +++++
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c
> > > index ee1822ca01db..7e6ff76466b7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-host.c
> > > @@ -332,6 +332,11 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_host_init_port(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
> > >  		/*
> > >  		 * Enable retrain for gen2. This should be configured only after
> > >  		 * gen1 finished.
> > > +		 *
> > > +		 * According to Rockchip this path is dangerous and may lead to
> > > +		 * catastrophic failure. Even if the odds are small, users are
> > > +		 * still discouraged to engage the corresponding DT option.
> > > +		 *
> > >  		 */
> > >  		status = rockchip_pcie_read(rockchip, PCIE_RC_CONFIG_CR + PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2);
> > >  		status &= ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS;
> > 
> > Looking good to me, thanks for this patch!  There's no need
> > to emit warnings here, because they'd be emitted already in
> > the rockchip_pcie_parse_dt() function.
> > 
> > Please feel free to include
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic at manjaro.org>
> >
> 
> I disagree, I think the comment stands.
> 
> Even if we reduce to one line, ex:
> 
> + May cause damage

Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, so let me clarify a bit.  The
comment you added is fine, I just referred to no need for emitting
a warning at that point, because it would be emitted already.