| Message ID | 20240304-pci-dbi-rework-v9-7-29d433d99cda@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | PCI: dwc: ep: Fix DBI access failure for drivers requiring refclk from host | expand |
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:52:19PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > "core_init_notifier" flag is set by the glue drivers requiring refclk from > the host to complete the DWC core initialization. Also, those drivers will > send a notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > completed using the pci_epc_init_notify() API. Only then, the EPF drivers > will start functioning. > > For the rest of the drivers generating refclk locally, EPF drivers will > start functioning post binding with them. EPF drivers rely on the > 'core_init_notifier' flag to differentiate between the drivers. > Unfortunately, this creates two different flows for the EPF drivers. > > So to avoid that, let's get rid of the "core_init_notifier" flag and follow > a single initialization flow for the EPF drivers. This is done by calling > the dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() from all glue drivers after the completion of > dw_pcie_ep_init_registers() API. This will allow all the glue drivers to > send the notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > completed. > > Only difference here is that, the drivers requiring refclk from host will > send the notification once refclk is received, while others will send it > during probe time itself. > > Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > --- You have removed the .core_init_notifier from EPC drivers, but the callback in EPF drivers is still called .core_init. Yes, this was a confusing name even before this patch, but after this patch, it is probably even worse :) The callback should be named from the perspective of EPF drivers IMO. .core_init sounds like a EPF driver should initialize the core. (But that is of course done by the EPC driver.) The .link_up() callback name is better, the EPF driver is informed that the link is up. Perhaps we could rename .core_init to .core_up ? It tells the EPF drivers that the core is now up. (And the EPF driver can configure the BARs.) Considering that you are not changing the name of the callback, and that it was already confusing before this patch: Reviewed-by: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:09:06PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:52:19PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > "core_init_notifier" flag is set by the glue drivers requiring refclk from > > the host to complete the DWC core initialization. Also, those drivers will > > send a notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > > completed using the pci_epc_init_notify() API. Only then, the EPF drivers > > will start functioning. > > > > For the rest of the drivers generating refclk locally, EPF drivers will > > start functioning post binding with them. EPF drivers rely on the > > 'core_init_notifier' flag to differentiate between the drivers. > > Unfortunately, this creates two different flows for the EPF drivers. > > > > So to avoid that, let's get rid of the "core_init_notifier" flag and follow > > a single initialization flow for the EPF drivers. This is done by calling > > the dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() from all glue drivers after the completion of > > dw_pcie_ep_init_registers() API. This will allow all the glue drivers to > > send the notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > > completed. > > > > Only difference here is that, the drivers requiring refclk from host will > > send the notification once refclk is received, while others will send it > > during probe time itself. > > > > Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > > --- > > You have removed the .core_init_notifier from EPC drivers, > but the callback in EPF drivers is still called .core_init. > > Yes, this was a confusing name even before this patch, but > after this patch, it is probably even worse :) > > The callback should be named from the perspective of EPF drivers IMO. > .core_init sounds like a EPF driver should initialize the core. > (But that is of course done by the EPC driver.) > > The .link_up() callback name is better, the EPF driver is informed > that the link is up. > > Perhaps we could rename .core_init to .core_up ? > > It tells the EPF drivers that the core is now up. > (And the EPF driver can configure the BARs.) > I don't disagree :) I thought about it but then decided to not extend the scope of this series further. So saved that for next series. But yeah, it is good to clean it up here itself. > > Considering that you are not changing the name of the callback, > and that it was already confusing before this patch: > Reviewed-by: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org> Thanks! - Mani
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 11:08:29AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:09:06PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:52:19PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > "core_init_notifier" flag is set by the glue drivers requiring refclk from > > > the host to complete the DWC core initialization. Also, those drivers will > > > send a notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > > > completed using the pci_epc_init_notify() API. Only then, the EPF drivers > > > will start functioning. > > > > > > For the rest of the drivers generating refclk locally, EPF drivers will > > > start functioning post binding with them. EPF drivers rely on the > > > 'core_init_notifier' flag to differentiate between the drivers. > > > Unfortunately, this creates two different flows for the EPF drivers. > > > > > > So to avoid that, let's get rid of the "core_init_notifier" flag and follow > > > a single initialization flow for the EPF drivers. This is done by calling > > > the dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() from all glue drivers after the completion of > > > dw_pcie_ep_init_registers() API. This will allow all the glue drivers to > > > send the notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > > > completed. > > > > > > Only difference here is that, the drivers requiring refclk from host will > > > send the notification once refclk is received, while others will send it > > > during probe time itself. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > > You have removed the .core_init_notifier from EPC drivers, > > but the callback in EPF drivers is still called .core_init. > > > > Yes, this was a confusing name even before this patch, but > > after this patch, it is probably even worse :) > > > > The callback should be named from the perspective of EPF drivers IMO. > > .core_init sounds like a EPF driver should initialize the core. > > (But that is of course done by the EPC driver.) > > > > The .link_up() callback name is better, the EPF driver is informed > > that the link is up. > > > > Perhaps we could rename .core_init to .core_up ? > > > > It tells the EPF drivers that the core is now up. > > (And the EPF driver can configure the BARs.) > > > > I don't disagree :) I thought about it but then decided to not extend the scope > of this series further. So saved that for next series. > > But yeah, it is good to clean it up here itself. If you intend to create a .core_deinit or .core_down (or whatever name you decide on), perhaps it is better to leave this cleanup to be part of that same series? Kind regards, Niklas
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 09:48:07AM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 11:08:29AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:09:06PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:52:19PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > "core_init_notifier" flag is set by the glue drivers requiring refclk from > > > > the host to complete the DWC core initialization. Also, those drivers will > > > > send a notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > > > > completed using the pci_epc_init_notify() API. Only then, the EPF drivers > > > > will start functioning. > > > > > > > > For the rest of the drivers generating refclk locally, EPF drivers will > > > > start functioning post binding with them. EPF drivers rely on the > > > > 'core_init_notifier' flag to differentiate between the drivers. > > > > Unfortunately, this creates two different flows for the EPF drivers. > > > > > > > > So to avoid that, let's get rid of the "core_init_notifier" flag and follow > > > > a single initialization flow for the EPF drivers. This is done by calling > > > > the dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() from all glue drivers after the completion of > > > > dw_pcie_ep_init_registers() API. This will allow all the glue drivers to > > > > send the notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > > > > completed. > > > > > > > > Only difference here is that, the drivers requiring refclk from host will > > > > send the notification once refclk is received, while others will send it > > > > during probe time itself. > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > > > You have removed the .core_init_notifier from EPC drivers, > > > but the callback in EPF drivers is still called .core_init. > > > > > > Yes, this was a confusing name even before this patch, but > > > after this patch, it is probably even worse :) > > > > > > The callback should be named from the perspective of EPF drivers IMO. > > > .core_init sounds like a EPF driver should initialize the core. > > > (But that is of course done by the EPC driver.) > > > > > > The .link_up() callback name is better, the EPF driver is informed > > > that the link is up. > > > > > > Perhaps we could rename .core_init to .core_up ? > > > > > > It tells the EPF drivers that the core is now up. > > > (And the EPF driver can configure the BARs.) > > > > > > > I don't disagree :) I thought about it but then decided to not extend the scope > > of this series further. So saved that for next series. > > > > But yeah, it is good to clean it up here itself. > > If you intend to create a .core_deinit or .core_down (or whatever name > you decide on), perhaps it is better to leave this cleanup to be part > of that same series? > I already added a patch. So let's do it here itself :) - Mani
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:52:19PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > "core_init_notifier" flag is set by the glue drivers requiring refclk from > the host to complete the DWC core initialization. Also, those drivers will > send a notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > completed using the pci_epc_init_notify() API. Only then, the EPF drivers > will start functioning. > > For the rest of the drivers generating refclk locally, EPF drivers will > start functioning post binding with them. EPF drivers rely on the > 'core_init_notifier' flag to differentiate between the drivers. > Unfortunately, this creates two different flows for the EPF drivers. > > So to avoid that, let's get rid of the "core_init_notifier" flag and follow > a single initialization flow for the EPF drivers. This is done by calling > the dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() from all glue drivers after the completion of > dw_pcie_ep_init_registers() API. This will allow all the glue drivers to > send the notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > completed. > > Only difference here is that, the drivers requiring refclk from host will > send the notification once refclk is received, while others will send it > during probe time itself. > > Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > --- > diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c > index 18c80002d3bd..fc0282b0d626 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c > @@ -927,21 +928,12 @@ static int pci_epf_test_bind(struct pci_epf *epf) > if (ret) > return ret; > Hello Mani, Since you asked for testing, I gave your series a spin (with a driver without .core_init_notifier). There seems to be a problem that pci_epc_write_header() is never called. Debugging this, it seems that .core_init in pci-epf-test is never called. If I add debug prints in pci_epc_init_notify(), I see that it does not notify a single EPF driver. It appears that the patch in $subject will call pci_epc_init_notify() at EPC driver .probe() time, and at that point in time, there are no EPF drivers registered. They get registered later, when doing the configfs write. I would say that it is the following change that breaks things: > - if (!core_init_notifier) { > - ret = pci_epf_test_core_init(epf); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > - } > - Since without this code, pci_epf_test_core_init() will no longer be called, as there is currently no one that calls epf->core_init() for a EPF driver after it has been bound. (For drivers that call dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() in .probe()) I guess one way to solve this would be for the EPC core to keep track of the current EPC "core state" (up/down). If the core is "up" at EPF .bind() time, notify the EPF driver directly after .bind()? Kind regards, Niklas
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 02:24:35PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:52:19PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > "core_init_notifier" flag is set by the glue drivers requiring refclk from > > the host to complete the DWC core initialization. Also, those drivers will > > send a notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > > completed using the pci_epc_init_notify() API. Only then, the EPF drivers > > will start functioning. > > > > For the rest of the drivers generating refclk locally, EPF drivers will > > start functioning post binding with them. EPF drivers rely on the > > 'core_init_notifier' flag to differentiate between the drivers. > > Unfortunately, this creates two different flows for the EPF drivers. > > > > So to avoid that, let's get rid of the "core_init_notifier" flag and follow > > a single initialization flow for the EPF drivers. This is done by calling > > the dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() from all glue drivers after the completion of > > dw_pcie_ep_init_registers() API. This will allow all the glue drivers to > > send the notification to the EPF drivers once the initialization is fully > > completed. > > > > Only difference here is that, the drivers requiring refclk from host will > > send the notification once refclk is received, while others will send it > > during probe time itself. > > > > Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > > --- > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c > > index 18c80002d3bd..fc0282b0d626 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c > > @@ -927,21 +928,12 @@ static int pci_epf_test_bind(struct pci_epf *epf) > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > Hello Mani, > > Since you asked for testing, I gave your series a spin > (with a driver without .core_init_notifier). > > > There seems to be a problem that pci_epc_write_header() is never called. > > Debugging this, it seems that .core_init in pci-epf-test is never called. > > If I add debug prints in pci_epc_init_notify(), I see that it does not > notify a single EPF driver. > > It appears that the patch in $subject will call pci_epc_init_notify() > at EPC driver .probe() time, and at that point in time, there are no > EPF drivers registered. > > They get registered later, when doing the configfs write. > > > I would say that it is the following change that breaks things: > > > - if (!core_init_notifier) { > > - ret = pci_epf_test_core_init(epf); > > - if (ret) > > - return ret; > > - } > > - > > Since without this code, pci_epf_test_core_init() will no longer be called, > as there is currently no one that calls epf->core_init() for a EPF driver > after it has been bound. (For drivers that call dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() in > .probe()) > Thanks a lot for testing, Niklas! > I guess one way to solve this would be for the EPC core to keep track of > the current EPC "core state" (up/down). If the core is "up" at EPF .bind() > time, notify the EPF driver directly after .bind()? > Yeah, that's a good solution. But I think it would be better if the EPC caches all events if the EPF drivers are not available and dispatch them once the bind happens for each EPF driver. Even though INIT_COMPLETE is the only event that is getting generated before bind() now, IMO it is better to add provision to catch other events also. Wdyt? - Mani
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 08:15:59PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > I would say that it is the following change that breaks things: > > > > > - if (!core_init_notifier) { > > > - ret = pci_epf_test_core_init(epf); > > > - if (ret) > > > - return ret; > > > - } > > > - > > > > Since without this code, pci_epf_test_core_init() will no longer be called, > > as there is currently no one that calls epf->core_init() for a EPF driver > > after it has been bound. (For drivers that call dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() in > > .probe()) > > > > Thanks a lot for testing, Niklas! > > > I guess one way to solve this would be for the EPC core to keep track of > > the current EPC "core state" (up/down). If the core is "up" at EPF .bind() > > time, notify the EPF driver directly after .bind()? > > > > Yeah, that's a good solution. But I think it would be better if the EPC caches > all events if the EPF drivers are not available and dispatch them once the bind > happens for each EPF driver. Even though INIT_COMPLETE is the only event that is > getting generated before bind() now, IMO it is better to add provision to catch > other events also. > > Wdyt? I'm not sure. What if the EPF goes up/down/up, it seems a bit silly to send all those events to the EPF driver that will alloc+free+alloc. Do we know for sure that we will want to store + replay events other than INIT_COMPLETE? And how many events should we store? Until we can think of a good reason which events other than UP/DOWN we can to store, I think that just storing the state as an integer in struct pci_epc seems simpler. Or I guess we could continue with a flag in struct pci_epc_features, like has_perst_notifier, which would then require the EPC driver to call both epc_notify_core_up() and epc_notify_core_down() when receiving the PERST deassert/assert. For a driver without the flag set, the EPC core would call .epc_notify_core_up() after bind. (And .epc_notify_core_down() would never be called, or it could call it before unbind().) That way an EPF driver itself would not need any different handling (all callbacks would always come, either triggered by an EPC driver that has PERST GPIO irq, or triggered by the EPC core for a driver that lacks a PERST GPIO). Kind regards, Niklas
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 10:54:28PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 08:15:59PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > > > I would say that it is the following change that breaks things: > > > > > > > - if (!core_init_notifier) { > > > > - ret = pci_epf_test_core_init(epf); > > > > - if (ret) > > > > - return ret; > > > > - } > > > > - > > > > > > Since without this code, pci_epf_test_core_init() will no longer be called, > > > as there is currently no one that calls epf->core_init() for a EPF driver > > > after it has been bound. (For drivers that call dw_pcie_ep_init_notify() in > > > .probe()) > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for testing, Niklas! > > > > > I guess one way to solve this would be for the EPC core to keep track of > > > the current EPC "core state" (up/down). If the core is "up" at EPF .bind() > > > time, notify the EPF driver directly after .bind()? > > > > > > > Yeah, that's a good solution. But I think it would be better if the EPC caches > > all events if the EPF drivers are not available and dispatch them once the bind > > happens for each EPF driver. Even though INIT_COMPLETE is the only event that is > > getting generated before bind() now, IMO it is better to add provision to catch > > other events also. > > > > Wdyt? > > I'm not sure. > What if the EPF goes up/down/up, it seems a bit silly to send all those > events to the EPF driver that will alloc+free+alloc. > > Do we know for sure that we will want to store + replay events other than > INIT_COMPLETE? > > And how many events should we store? > > > Until we can think of a good reason which events other than UP/DOWN we > can to store, I think that just storing the state as an integer in > struct pci_epc seems simpler. > Hmm, makes sense. > > Or I guess we could continue with a flag in struct pci_epc_features, > like has_perst_notifier, which would then require the EPC driver to > call both epc_notify_core_up() and epc_notify_core_down() when receiving > the PERST deassert/assert. > For a driver without the flag set, the EPC core would call > .epc_notify_core_up() after bind. (And .epc_notify_core_down() would never > be called, or it could call it before unbind().) > That way an EPF driver itself would not need any different handling > (all callbacks would always come, either triggered by an EPC driver that > has PERST GPIO irq, or triggered by the EPC core for a driver that lacks > a PERST GPIO). > For simplicity, I've just used a flag in 'struct pci_epc' to track the core_init and call the callback during bind(). But the series has grown big, so I decided to split it into two. One to address the DBI access issue and also remove the 'core_init_notifier' flag and another one to make EPF drivers more robust to handle the host reboot scenario. - Mani
diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c index 395042b29ffc..d2d17d37d3e0 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c @@ -474,6 +474,8 @@ static int dra7xx_add_pcie_ep(struct dra7xx_pcie *dra7xx, return ret; } + dw_pcie_ep_init_notify(ep); + return 0; } diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c index bfcafa440ddb..894b5de76e3a 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c @@ -1144,6 +1144,8 @@ static int imx6_add_pcie_ep(struct imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie, return ret; } + dw_pcie_ep_init_notify(ep); + /* Start LTSSM. */ imx6_pcie_ltssm_enable(dev); diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-keystone.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-keystone.c index 8392894ed286..1d00c5fa14ce 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-keystone.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-keystone.c @@ -1293,6 +1293,8 @@ static int ks_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) goto err_ep_init; } + dw_pcie_ep_init_notify(&pci->ep); + break; default: dev_err(dev, "INVALID device type %d\n", mode); diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-layerscape-ep.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-layerscape-ep.c index b712fdd06549..c513598a46d7 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-layerscape-ep.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-layerscape-ep.c @@ -283,6 +283,8 @@ static int __init ls_pcie_ep_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return ret; } + dw_pcie_ep_init_notify(&pci->ep); + return ls_pcie_ep_interrupt_init(pcie, pdev); } diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-artpec6.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-artpec6.c index 0edd9ab3f139..fd49a67cd2b1 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-artpec6.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-artpec6.c @@ -452,6 +452,8 @@ static int artpec6_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return ret; } + dw_pcie_ep_init_notify(&pci->ep); + break; default: dev_err(dev, "INVALID device type %d\n", artpec6_pcie->mode); diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-plat.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-plat.c index ca9b22e654cd..8490c5d6ff9f 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-plat.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-plat.c @@ -154,6 +154,8 @@ static int dw_plat_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) dw_pcie_ep_deinit(&pci->ep); } + dw_pcie_ep_init_notify(&pci->ep); + break; default: dev_err(dev, "INVALID device type %d\n", dw_plat_pcie->mode); diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-keembay.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-keembay.c index 250d6acf16dc..9fa9354a5f48 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-keembay.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-keembay.c @@ -438,6 +438,8 @@ static int keembay_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return ret; } + dw_pcie_ep_init_notify(&pci->ep); + break; default: dev_err(dev, "Invalid device type %d\n", pcie->mode); diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c index 3697b4a944cc..2fb8c15e7a91 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c @@ -775,7 +775,6 @@ static void qcom_pcie_ep_init_debugfs(struct qcom_pcie_ep *pcie_ep) static const struct pci_epc_features qcom_pcie_epc_features = { .linkup_notifier = true, - .core_init_notifier = true, .msi_capable = true, .msix_capable = false, .align = SZ_4K, diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c index fb7c03639a53..0448928017f3 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c @@ -435,6 +435,8 @@ static int rcar_gen4_add_dw_pcie_ep(struct rcar_gen4_pcie *rcar) rcar_gen4_pcie_ep_deinit(rcar); } + dw_pcie_ep_init_notify(ep); + return ret; } diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-tegra194.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-tegra194.c index 264ee76bf008..e02deb31a72d 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-tegra194.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-tegra194.c @@ -2006,7 +2006,6 @@ static int tegra_pcie_ep_raise_irq(struct dw_pcie_ep *ep, u8 func_no, static const struct pci_epc_features tegra_pcie_epc_features = { .linkup_notifier = true, - .core_init_notifier = true, .msi_capable = false, .msix_capable = false, .reserved_bar = 1 << BAR_2 | 1 << BAR_3 | 1 << BAR_4 | 1 << BAR_5, diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier-ep.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier-ep.c index 82ccaea089be..eb1d79fdb1f1 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier-ep.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier-ep.c @@ -410,6 +410,8 @@ static int uniphier_pcie_ep_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) return ret; } + dw_pcie_ep_init_notify(&priv->pci.ep); + return 0; } diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c index 18c80002d3bd..fc0282b0d626 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c @@ -753,6 +753,7 @@ static int pci_epf_test_core_init(struct pci_epf *epf) const struct pci_epc_features *epc_features; struct pci_epc *epc = epf->epc; struct device *dev = &epf->dev; + bool linkup_notifier = false; bool msix_capable = false; bool msi_capable = true; int ret; @@ -795,6 +796,10 @@ static int pci_epf_test_core_init(struct pci_epf *epf) } } + linkup_notifier = epc_features->linkup_notifier; + if (!linkup_notifier) + queue_work(kpcitest_workqueue, &epf_test->cmd_handler.work); + return 0; } @@ -901,8 +906,6 @@ static int pci_epf_test_bind(struct pci_epf *epf) const struct pci_epc_features *epc_features; enum pci_barno test_reg_bar = BAR_0; struct pci_epc *epc = epf->epc; - bool linkup_notifier = false; - bool core_init_notifier = false; if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!epc)) return -EINVAL; @@ -913,8 +916,6 @@ static int pci_epf_test_bind(struct pci_epf *epf) return -EOPNOTSUPP; } - linkup_notifier = epc_features->linkup_notifier; - core_init_notifier = epc_features->core_init_notifier; test_reg_bar = pci_epc_get_first_free_bar(epc_features); if (test_reg_bar < 0) return -EINVAL; @@ -927,21 +928,12 @@ static int pci_epf_test_bind(struct pci_epf *epf) if (ret) return ret; - if (!core_init_notifier) { - ret = pci_epf_test_core_init(epf); - if (ret) - return ret; - } - epf_test->dma_supported = true; ret = pci_epf_test_init_dma_chan(epf_test); if (ret) epf_test->dma_supported = false; - if (!linkup_notifier && !core_init_notifier) - queue_work(kpcitest_workqueue, &epf_test->cmd_handler.work); - return 0; } diff --git a/include/linux/pci-epc.h b/include/linux/pci-epc.h index 40ea18f5aa02..03d22aed5ac6 100644 --- a/include/linux/pci-epc.h +++ b/include/linux/pci-epc.h @@ -148,8 +148,6 @@ struct pci_epc { /** * struct pci_epc_features - features supported by a EPC device per function * @linkup_notifier: indicate if the EPC device can notify EPF driver on link up - * @core_init_notifier: indicate cores that can notify about their availability - * for initialization * @msi_capable: indicate if the endpoint function has MSI capability * @msix_capable: indicate if the endpoint function has MSI-X capability * @reserved_bar: bitmap to indicate reserved BAR unavailable to function driver @@ -159,7 +157,6 @@ struct pci_epc { */ struct pci_epc_features { unsigned int linkup_notifier : 1; - unsigned int core_init_notifier : 1; unsigned int msi_capable : 1; unsigned int msix_capable : 1; u8 reserved_bar;