Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] PCI: rockchip: add DesignWare based PCIe controller【请注意，邮件由kswilczynski at gmail.com代发】

[xxm]

Hi Krzysztof,

All your comments will be fixed in next patch, thanks for your review.

在 2021/2/22 10:28, Krzysztof Wilczyński 写道:
> Hi Simon,
>
> The subject should start with a capital letter.
>
> [...]
>> pcie-dw-rockchip is based on DWC IP. But pcie-rockchip-host
>> is Rockchip designed IP which is only used for RK3399. So all the following
>> non-RK3399 SoCs should use this driver.
> You might need to wrap the long line in the above.
>
> The commit message above could use some polish in terms of wording and
> adding more context - what are you adding, what is this driver going to
> support.  For example, what are the "all the following" SoCs?  Should
> there be a list?  Or did you mean "all the other (...)", etc.
>
> [...]
>> +config PCIE_ROCKCHIP_DW_HOST
>> +	bool "Rockchip DesignWare PCIe controller"
>> +	select PCIE_DW
>> +	select PCIE_DW_HOST
>> +	depends on ARCH_ROCKCHIP || COMPILE_TEST
>> +	depends on OF
>> +	help
>> +	  Enables support for the DW PCIe controller in the Rockchip SoC.
> Perhaps replacing "DW" with "DesignWare" would be better.  Also, do you
> want to mention here - for the sake of the future user - that this not
> intended to support RK3399 as per the commit message.
>
> [...]
>> +/*
>> + * PCIe host controller driver for Rockchip SoCs
> A nitpick.  Missing period at the end of the sentence.
>
> [...]
>> +static int rockchip_pcie_link_up(struct dw_pcie *pci)
>> +{
>> +	struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = to_rockchip_pcie(pci);
>> +	u32 val = rockchip_pcie_readl_apb(rockchip, PCIE_CLIENT_LTSSM_STATUS);
>> +
>> +	if ((val & (PCIE_RDLH_LINKUP | PCIE_SMLH_LINKUP)) == 0x30000 &&
> [...]
>
> A suggestion.  Would it make sense to add a definition for this
> open-coded value of 0x30000 above?
>
>> +static void rockchip_pcie_fast_link_setup(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
>> +{
>> +	u32 val;
>> +
>> +	/* LTSSM EN ctrl mode */
> [...]
>
> Does this comment above stands for "LTSSM enable control mode"?
>
>> +static int rockchip_pcie_phy_init(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
>> +{
>> +	int ret;
>> +	struct device *dev = rockchip->pci.dev;
> These two variables should swap place to keep order of use, and to match
> how it has been done everywhere else in this drivers.
>
>> +
>> +	rockchip->phy = devm_phy_get(dev, "pcie-phy");
>> +	if (IS_ERR(rockchip->phy))
>> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(rockchip->phy),
>> +				     "missing phy\n");
> I would be "PHY" here.
>
>> +	ret = phy_init(rockchip->phy);
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	phy_power_on(rockchip->phy);
> [...]
>
> We should probably check phy_power_on() for a possible failure.  Some
> platforms also clean up on a failure from phy_init() and phy_power_on(),
> but I am not sure if this particular platform would require anything.
>
> [...]
>> +	/* DON'T MOVE ME: must be enable before phy init */
> It would be "PHY" here.
>
>> +	rockchip->vpcie3v3 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie3v3");
>> +	if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3))
>> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(rockchip->rst),
>> +				     "failed to get vpcie3v3 regulator\n");
>> +
>> +	if (rockchip->vpcie3v3) {
>> +		ret = regulator_enable(rockchip->vpcie3v3);
>> +		if (ret) {
>> +			dev_err(dev, "fail to enable vpcie3v3 regulator\n");
> It would be "failed" here.
>
> [...]
>> +static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pcie_of_match[] = {
>> +	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3568-pcie", },
>> +	{ /* sentinel */ },
>> +};
> We could probably drop the comment about the "sentinel" from the above.
>
> Krzysztof
>
>