| Message ID | 20181031194944.19233-1-tpiepho@impinj.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | Bjorn Helgaas |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] PCI: imx6: Check for link training status in link up check | expand |
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 07:49:59PM +0000, Trent Piepho wrote: > This fixes a regression introduced in merge 562df5c8521e. A merge being a commits collection, the regression was certainly introduced by a specific commit in it, not the merge itself. Please remove this line and add a proper Fixes: tag below. Please use the canonical commit format: git --no-pager show -s --abbrev-commit --abbrev=12 --pretty=format:"%h (\"%s\")%n" SHA-1 ID Also for the Fixes: tag and all references. > Prior to this the link up check done by imx6_pcie_wait_for_link() > consisted of a polling loop on imx6_pcie_link_up() (via the former > calling dw_pcie_link_up() which called the latter as callback), and > imx6_pcie_link_up() polled the link status register checking for link > up *and link not still training*. > > This was a polling loop inside another polling loop. And the outermost > loop was duplicated with minor variations in a number of other dwc based > host drivers. > > This was addressed in two commits. Commit 4d107d3b5a68 ("PCI: imx6: Move > link up check into imx6_pcie_wait_for_link()"), changed > imx6_pcie_wait_for_link() to poll the link status register directly, > checking for link up and not training, and made imx6_pcie_link_up() only > check the link up bit (once, not a polling loop). > > While commit commit 886bc5ceb5cc ("PCI: designware: Add generic One "commit" is enough. > dw_pcie_wait_for_link()"), replaced the loop in imx6_pcie_wait_for_link() > with a call to a new dwc core function, which polled imx6_pcie_link_up(), > which still checked both link up and not training in a loop. > > When these two commits were merged, the version of > imx6_pcie_wait_for_link() from '886 was kept, which eliminated the link > training check placed there by '4d1. But the version of > imx6_pcie_link_up() from '4d1 was kept, which eliminated the link training > check that had been there and was moved to imx6_pcie_wait_for_link(). > > There result is no link training check. > > Then commit dac29e6c5460 ("PCI: designware: Add default link up check if > sub-driver doesn't override") added a default check into > dw_pcie_link_up(), which could have been used by imx6, but wasn't. Then > commit 01c076732e82 ("PCI: designware: Check LTSSM training bit before > deciding link is up") added a link training check to the default from > 'dac, but this code was still not used by imx6. > > This commit eliminates imx6_pcie_link_up() so that the default > dw_pcie_link_up() is used. The default has the correct code and is what > the imx6 driver used to do. Write one sentence in imperative form, eg "Eliminate imx6_pcie_link_up()..", see Bjorn's guidelines below. > Fixes: 562df5c8521e1371f3cbd0b7b868034da376d714 Report the commit you are fixing, not the merge commit and report it in canonical format. > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> > Cc: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> > Reviewed-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Trent Piepho <tpiepho@impinj.com> This commit log is a tad long, I would appreciate if you tried to summarize it, I can do it for you if you wish so. Please read: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20171026223701.GA25649@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com/ You should CC at least what get_maintainer.pl -f drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c reports. Thanks, Lorenzo > --- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c | 10 +--------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c > index 4a9a673b4777..975050a69494 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c > @@ -80,8 +80,6 @@ struct imx6_pcie { > #define PCIE_PL_PFLR_FORCE_LINK (1 << 15) > #define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R0 (PL_OFFSET + 0x28) > #define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1 (PL_OFFSET + 0x2c) > -#define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1_XMLH_LINK_IN_TRAINING (1 << 29) > -#define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1_XMLH_LINK_UP (1 << 4) > > #define PCIE_PHY_CTRL (PL_OFFSET + 0x114) > #define PCIE_PHY_CTRL_DATA_LOC 0 > @@ -641,12 +639,6 @@ static int imx6_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp) > return 0; > } > > -static int imx6_pcie_link_up(struct dw_pcie *pci) > -{ > - return dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1) & > - PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1_XMLH_LINK_UP; > -} > - > static const struct dw_pcie_host_ops imx6_pcie_host_ops = { > .host_init = imx6_pcie_host_init, > }; > @@ -679,7 +671,7 @@ static int imx6_add_pcie_port(struct imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie, > } > > static const struct dw_pcie_ops dw_pcie_ops = { > - .link_up = imx6_pcie_link_up, > + /* No special ops needed, but pcie-designware still expects this struct */ > }; > > static int imx6_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > -- > 2.14.4 >
On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 13:55 +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 07:49:59PM +0000, Trent Piepho wrote: > > This fixes a regression introduced in merge 562df5c8521e. > > A merge being a commits collection, the regression was certainly > introduced by a specific commit in it, not the merge itself. In this case it really is merge commit. While the problem and fix are relatively obvious, finding how it came to be broken was a challenge. Most of the commit message is my proof that this is a bug and not something done intentionally, by tracking back the complicated route that caused the code to be in its current state. Basically there are two commits, on both branches of the merge, neither of which caused a problem nor were they incorrect in any way at the time they were committed. When that merge combined this collection of multiple commits, it did not do so correctly and that is the point a bug appeared. Or put another way, this problem was already fixed some time ago, but in the merge commit the fix was dropped. It seems like the proper way to attribute my fix is to the merge, as that is what caused the regression. There is no prior commit where one can observe the regression. > Also for the Fixes: tag and all references. Would it be ok to refer to the commit this way the first time, then use a shortened method for subsequent usages? Otherwise talking about two commits becomes very long. This it what I have mostly done, other than the "Fixes" line. I'm surprised checkpatch didn't catch that.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:23:12AM +0000, Trent Piepho wrote: > On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 13:55 +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 07:49:59PM +0000, Trent Piepho wrote: > > > This fixes a regression introduced in merge 562df5c8521e. > > > > A merge being a commits collection, the regression was certainly > > introduced by a specific commit in it, not the merge itself. > > In this case it really is merge commit. > > While the problem and fix are relatively obvious, finding how it came > to be broken was a challenge. Most of the commit message is my proof > that this is a bug and not something done intentionally, by tracking > back the complicated route that caused the code to be in its current > state. > > Basically there are two commits, on both branches of the merge, neither > of which caused a problem nor were they incorrect in any way at the > time they were committed. When that merge combined this collection of > multiple commits, it did not do so correctly and that is the point a > bug appeared. > > Or put another way, this problem was already fixed some time ago, but > in the merge commit the fix was dropped. > > It seems like the proper way to attribute my fix is to the merge, as > that is what caused the regression. There is no prior commit where one > can observe the regression. You are right, I went through git history and I agree with your summary, that's what happened. > > Also for the Fixes: tag and all references. > > Would it be ok to refer to the commit this way the first time, then use > a shortened method for subsequent usages? Otherwise talking about two > commits becomes very long. This it what I have mostly done, other than > the "Fixes" line. I'm surprised checkpatch didn't catch that. I would like to ask Bjorn's opinion on this, I do not know if adding a Fixes: tag with a merge commit in it is common practice but that summarizes what happened so I assume it should be fine. As for the shortened commit format I understand your point, I do not know if that's "official" from a kernel process standpoint. Lorenzo
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:21:13PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:23:12AM +0000, Trent Piepho wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 13:55 +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 07:49:59PM +0000, Trent Piepho wrote: > > > > This fixes a regression introduced in merge 562df5c8521e. > > > > > > A merge being a commits collection, the regression was certainly > > > introduced by a specific commit in it, not the merge itself. > > > > In this case it really is merge commit. > > > > While the problem and fix are relatively obvious, finding how it came > > to be broken was a challenge. Most of the commit message is my proof > > that this is a bug and not something done intentionally, by tracking > > back the complicated route that caused the code to be in its current > > state. > > > > Basically there are two commits, on both branches of the merge, neither > > of which caused a problem nor were they incorrect in any way at the > > time they were committed. When that merge combined this collection of > > multiple commits, it did not do so correctly and that is the point a > > bug appeared. > > > > Or put another way, this problem was already fixed some time ago, but > > in the merge commit the fix was dropped. > > > > It seems like the proper way to attribute my fix is to the merge, as > > that is what caused the regression. There is no prior commit where one > > can observe the regression. > > You are right, I went through git history and I agree with your > summary, that's what happened. > > > > Also for the Fixes: tag and all references. > > > > Would it be ok to refer to the commit this way the first time, then use > > a shortened method for subsequent usages? Otherwise talking about two > > commits becomes very long. This it what I have mostly done, other than > > the "Fixes" line. I'm surprised checkpatch didn't catch that. > > I would like to ask Bjorn's opinion on this, I do not know if adding > a Fixes: tag with a merge commit in it is common practice but that > summarizes what happened so I assume it should be fine. That sounds good to me. > As for the shortened commit format I understand your point, I do not > know if that's "official" from a kernel process standpoint. It took me a while to figure out what '886 meant because it's unusual and the "'" usually goes where the *missing* characters are. Personally I would use the full 886bc5ceb5cc ("PCI: designware: Add generic dw_pcie_wait_for_link()") at the first reference and just 886bc5ceb5cc for subsequent references. Thanks for chasing this down! It's really a hassle to figure out things that work separately but not together. Bjorn
diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c index 4a9a673b4777..975050a69494 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c @@ -80,8 +80,6 @@ struct imx6_pcie { #define PCIE_PL_PFLR_FORCE_LINK (1 << 15) #define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R0 (PL_OFFSET + 0x28) #define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1 (PL_OFFSET + 0x2c) -#define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1_XMLH_LINK_IN_TRAINING (1 << 29) -#define PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1_XMLH_LINK_UP (1 << 4) #define PCIE_PHY_CTRL (PL_OFFSET + 0x114) #define PCIE_PHY_CTRL_DATA_LOC 0 @@ -641,12 +639,6 @@ static int imx6_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp) return 0; } -static int imx6_pcie_link_up(struct dw_pcie *pci) -{ - return dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1) & - PCIE_PHY_DEBUG_R1_XMLH_LINK_UP; -} - static const struct dw_pcie_host_ops imx6_pcie_host_ops = { .host_init = imx6_pcie_host_init, }; @@ -679,7 +671,7 @@ static int imx6_add_pcie_port(struct imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie, } static const struct dw_pcie_ops dw_pcie_ops = { - .link_up = imx6_pcie_link_up, + /* No special ops needed, but pcie-designware still expects this struct */ }; static int imx6_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
This fixes a regression introduced in merge 562df5c8521e. Prior to this the link up check done by imx6_pcie_wait_for_link() consisted of a polling loop on imx6_pcie_link_up() (via the former calling dw_pcie_link_up() which called the latter as callback), and imx6_pcie_link_up() polled the link status register checking for link up *and link not still training*. This was a polling loop inside another polling loop. And the outermost loop was duplicated with minor variations in a number of other dwc based host drivers. This was addressed in two commits. Commit 4d107d3b5a68 ("PCI: imx6: Move link up check into imx6_pcie_wait_for_link()"), changed imx6_pcie_wait_for_link() to poll the link status register directly, checking for link up and not training, and made imx6_pcie_link_up() only check the link up bit (once, not a polling loop). While commit commit 886bc5ceb5cc ("PCI: designware: Add generic dw_pcie_wait_for_link()"), replaced the loop in imx6_pcie_wait_for_link() with a call to a new dwc core function, which polled imx6_pcie_link_up(), which still checked both link up and not training in a loop. When these two commits were merged, the version of imx6_pcie_wait_for_link() from '886 was kept, which eliminated the link training check placed there by '4d1. But the version of imx6_pcie_link_up() from '4d1 was kept, which eliminated the link training check that had been there and was moved to imx6_pcie_wait_for_link(). There result is no link training check. Then commit dac29e6c5460 ("PCI: designware: Add default link up check if sub-driver doesn't override") added a default check into dw_pcie_link_up(), which could have been used by imx6, but wasn't. Then commit 01c076732e82 ("PCI: designware: Check LTSSM training bit before deciding link is up") added a link training check to the default from 'dac, but this code was still not used by imx6. This commit eliminates imx6_pcie_link_up() so that the default dw_pcie_link_up() is used. The default has the correct code and is what the imx6 driver used to do. Fixes: 562df5c8521e1371f3cbd0b7b868034da376d714 Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> Cc: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com> Reviewed-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Trent Piepho <tpiepho@impinj.com> --- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c | 10 +--------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)