Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] PCI:?==?utf-8?q? rockchip: drive at 2.5?==?utf-8?q? GT/s, error other speeds

[Dragan Simic]

Hello Geraldo,

On Saturday, February 28, 2026 01:55 CET, Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Configure the core to be driven at 2.5 GT/s Link Speed and ignore
> any other speed with a warning. The reason is that Shawn Lin from
> Rockchip has reiterated that there may be danger of "catastrophic
> failure" in using their PCIe with 5.0 GT/s speeds.
> 
> While Rockchip has done so informally without issuing a proper errata,
> and the particulars are thus unknown, this may cause data loss or
> worse.
> 
> This change is corroborated by RK3399 official datasheet [1], which
> states maximum link speed for this platform is 2.5 GT/s.
> 
> [1] https://opensource.rock-chips.com/images/d/d7/Rockchip_RK3399_Datasheet_V2.1-20200323.pdf
> 
> Fixes: 956cd99b35a8 ("PCI: rockchip: Separate common code from RC driver")
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ffd05070-9879-4468-94e3-b88968b4c21b@rock-chips.com/
> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
> Reported-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic at manjaro.org>
> Reported-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin at rock-chips.com>
> Signed-off-by: Geraldo Nascimento <geraldogabriel at gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.c | 15 +++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.c
> index 0f88da378805..2f211d1f4c7c 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.c
> @@ -66,8 +66,10 @@ int rockchip_pcie_parse_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
>  	}
>  
>  	rockchip->link_gen = of_pci_get_max_link_speed(node);
> -	if (rockchip->link_gen < 0 || rockchip->link_gen > 2)
> -		rockchip->link_gen = 2;
> +	if (rockchip->link_gen < 0 || rockchip->link_gen >= 2) {
> +		rockchip->link_gen = 1;
> +		dev_warn(dev, "invalid max-link-speed, fix your DT\n");
> +	}

I'd suggest using a bit more formal message here, like the one below,
which would also avoid addressing the user directly:

  "Invalid max-link-speed found, limited to Gen1 to avoid data corruption"

>  	for (i = 0; i < ROCKCHIP_NUM_PM_RSTS; i++)
>  		rockchip->pm_rsts[i].id = rockchip_pci_pm_rsts[i];
> @@ -147,12 +149,13 @@ int rockchip_pcie_init_port(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
>  		goto err_exit_phy;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (rockchip->link_gen == 2)
> -		rockchip_pcie_write(rockchip, PCIE_CLIENT_GEN_SEL_2,
> -				    PCIE_CLIENT_CONFIG);
> -	else
> +	if (rockchip->link_gen == 2) {
> +		/* 5.0 GT/s may cause catastrophic failure for this core */
> +		dev_warn(dev, "5.0 GT/s may cause data loss or worse\n");
> +	} else {
>  		rockchip_pcie_write(rockchip, PCIE_CLIENT_GEN_SEL_1,
>  				    PCIE_CLIENT_CONFIG);
> +	}

I don't think we need to emit a warning here, because, as we've already
established through earlier discussions, the rockchip_pcie_init_port()
function should never receive an invalid speed value.

>  	regs = PCIE_CLIENT_ARI_ENABLE |
>  	       PCIE_CLIENT_CONF_LANE_NUM(rockchip->lanes);

It would make most sense to squash all three patches in this series
into a single patch, because they all form a single logical unit, which
introduces changes that are just going to be harder to track down later
if it's all scattered into multiple separate patches.

The only possible issue with the squashing comes from the inability to
have different patch subject prefixes for different driver changes, but
I think that's actually not an issue.  The long-term benefits of having
everything as a single patch outweighs the benefits of having different
patch subjects with separate patches.