| Message ID | 1509423769-10522-4-git-send-email-vidyas@nvidia.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add ASPM-L1 Substates support for Tegra | expand |
Hi Vidya, On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 09:52:48AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > Programs T_cmrt (Commmon Mode Restore Time) and T_pwr_on (Power On) > values to get them reflected in ASPM-L1 Sub-States capability registers > Also adjusts internal counter values according to 19.2 MHz clk_m value > > Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> > --- > V2: > * no change in this patch > > drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c > index e1526cc5d381..08da67a82a2d 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ > #include <linux/of_pci.h> > #include <linux/of_platform.h> > #include <linux/pci.h> > +#include <linux/pci-aspm.h> > #include <linux/phy/phy.h> > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > #include <linux/reset.h> > @@ -191,6 +192,27 @@ > #define RP_PRIV_XP_DL 0x494 > #define RP_PRIV_XP_DL_GEN2_UPD_FC_TSHOLD (0x1ff << 1) > > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL 0xC00 > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_MASK (0xFF << 8) > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_SHIFT 8 > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_MASK (0x3 << 16) > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_SHIFT 16 > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_MASK (0x1F << 19) > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_SHIFT 19 > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_HIDE_CAP (0x1 << 24) > + > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL 0xC04 > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY_MASK 0x1FFF > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY 0x26 > + > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL 0xC08 > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY_MASK 0x1FFF > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY 0x4D > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_MASK (0xFF << 13) > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND (0x13 << 13) > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP_MASK (0xF << 21) > +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP (0x2 << 21) > + > #define RP_RX_HDR_LIMIT 0xe00 > #define RP_RX_HDR_LIMIT_PW_MASK (0xff << 8) > #define RP_RX_HDR_LIMIT_PW (0x0e << 8) > @@ -331,6 +353,7 @@ struct tegra_pcie_soc { > bool program_deskew_time; > bool updateFC_threshold; > bool has_aspm_l1; > + bool has_aspm_l1ss; > }; > > static inline struct tegra_msi *to_tegra_msi(struct msi_controller *chip) > @@ -423,6 +446,12 @@ static inline u32 pads_readl(struct tegra_pcie *pcie, unsigned long offset) > return readl(pcie->pads + offset); > } > > +u32 pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold(void) > +{ > + /* LTR L1.2 Threshold = 55us for all ports */ > + return ((0x37 << 16) | (0x02 << 29)); I know you've already worked through this, but let me think out loud to try to figure this out myself. ASPM defines Link power states L0, L0s, and L1. L1 PM Substates extend that by adding L1.1 and L1.2. L1.2 presumably uses less power and has a longer exit delay than L1.1 [sec 5.5]. Ports that support L1.2 must support Latency Tolerance Reporting (LTR) [sec 6.18]. When LTR is enabled, a device periodically sends LTR messages. When ASPM puts a Link into L1, it chooses either L1.1 or L1.2 based on LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD and recent LTR messages. If there's no LTR information it looks like LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD doesn't matter and it always chooses L1.2 [sec 5.5.1]. I don't see anything that writes PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_LTR_EN, so I don't think Linux ever enables LTR. Some BIOSes apparently enable it (Google for "LTR enabled"). 1) It seems like the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value should be computed based on the latency requirements of downstream devices. How did you come up with 55us? 2) The spec requires [sec 5.5.4] that LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD at both ends of a Link be the same, but as far as I can see, there's no requirement that it be the same across the whole system, so this interface doesn't seem like quite the right approach. 3) We must support kernels with multiple host bridge drivers compiled in, and the weak/strong symbol approach doesn't support using the correct version, e.g., if we merge this patch, every system containing the tegra driver would use this function, even if the hardware had a different host bridge. Also, if another driver implemented its own version, we'd have duplicate symbols. > /* > * The configuration space mapping on Tegra is somewhat similar to the ECAM > * defined by PCIe. However it deviates a bit in how the 4 bits for extended > @@ -2262,6 +2291,37 @@ static void tegra_pcie_apply_sw_fixup(struct tegra_pcie_port *port) > value |= RP_VEND_XP_UPDATE_FC_THRESHOLD_T210; > writel(value, port->base + RP_VEND_XP); > } > + > + if (soc->has_aspm_l1ss) { > + /* Set Common Mode Restore Time to 30us */ > + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); > + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_MASK; > + value |= (0x1E << RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_SHIFT); > + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); > + > + /* set T_Power_On to 70us */ > + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); > + value &= ~(RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_MASK | > + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_MASK); > + value |= (1 << RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_SHIFT) | > + (7 << RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_SHIFT); > + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); > + > + /* Following is based on clk_m being 19.2 MHz */ > + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL); > + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY_MASK; > + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY; > + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL); > + > + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL); > + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY_MASK; > + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY; > + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_MASK; > + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND; > + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP_MASK; > + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP; > + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL); > + } > } > /* > * FIXME: If there are no PCIe cards attached, then calling this function > @@ -2403,6 +2463,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra20_pcie = { > .program_deskew_time = false, > .updateFC_threshold = false, > .has_aspm_l1 = false, > + .has_aspm_l1ss = false, > }; > > static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra30_pcie = { > @@ -2425,6 +2486,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra30_pcie = { > .program_deskew_time = false, > .updateFC_threshold = false, > .has_aspm_l1 = true, > + .has_aspm_l1ss = false, > }; > > static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra124_pcie = { > @@ -2446,6 +2508,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra124_pcie = { > .program_deskew_time = false, > .updateFC_threshold = false, > .has_aspm_l1 = true, > + .has_aspm_l1ss = false, > }; > > static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra210_pcie = { > @@ -2475,6 +2538,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra210_pcie = { > .program_deskew_time = true, > .updateFC_threshold = true, > .has_aspm_l1 = true, > + .has_aspm_l1ss = true, > }; > > static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra186_pcie = { > @@ -2497,6 +2561,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra186_pcie = { > .program_deskew_time = false, > .updateFC_threshold = false, > .has_aspm_l1 = true, > + .has_aspm_l1ss = true, > }; > > static const struct of_device_id tegra_pcie_of_match[] = { > -- > 2.7.4 >
On Wednesday 08 November 2017 04:20 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > Hi Vidya, > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 09:52:48AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: >> Programs T_cmrt (Commmon Mode Restore Time) and T_pwr_on (Power On) >> values to get them reflected in ASPM-L1 Sub-States capability registers >> Also adjusts internal counter values according to 19.2 MHz clk_m value >> >> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> >> --- >> V2: >> * no change in this patch >> >> drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c >> index e1526cc5d381..08da67a82a2d 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c >> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ >> #include <linux/of_pci.h> >> #include <linux/of_platform.h> >> #include <linux/pci.h> >> +#include <linux/pci-aspm.h> >> #include <linux/phy/phy.h> >> #include <linux/platform_device.h> >> #include <linux/reset.h> >> @@ -191,6 +192,27 @@ >> #define RP_PRIV_XP_DL 0x494 >> #define RP_PRIV_XP_DL_GEN2_UPD_FC_TSHOLD (0x1ff << 1) >> >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL 0xC00 >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_MASK (0xFF << 8) >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_SHIFT 8 >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_MASK (0x3 << 16) >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_SHIFT 16 >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_MASK (0x1F << 19) >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_SHIFT 19 >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_HIDE_CAP (0x1 << 24) >> + >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL 0xC04 >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY_MASK 0x1FFF >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY 0x26 >> + >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL 0xC08 >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY_MASK 0x1FFF >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY 0x4D >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_MASK (0xFF << 13) >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND (0x13 << 13) >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP_MASK (0xF << 21) >> +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP (0x2 << 21) >> + >> #define RP_RX_HDR_LIMIT 0xe00 >> #define RP_RX_HDR_LIMIT_PW_MASK (0xff << 8) >> #define RP_RX_HDR_LIMIT_PW (0x0e << 8) >> @@ -331,6 +353,7 @@ struct tegra_pcie_soc { >> bool program_deskew_time; >> bool updateFC_threshold; >> bool has_aspm_l1; >> + bool has_aspm_l1ss; >> }; >> >> static inline struct tegra_msi *to_tegra_msi(struct msi_controller *chip) >> @@ -423,6 +446,12 @@ static inline u32 pads_readl(struct tegra_pcie *pcie, unsigned long offset) >> return readl(pcie->pads + offset); >> } >> >> +u32 pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold(void) >> +{ >> + /* LTR L1.2 Threshold = 55us for all ports */ >> + return ((0x37 << 16) | (0x02 << 29)); > I know you've already worked through this, but let me think out loud > to try to figure this out myself. > > ASPM defines Link power states L0, L0s, and L1. L1 PM Substates > extend that by adding L1.1 and L1.2. L1.2 presumably uses less power > and has a longer exit delay than L1.1 [sec 5.5]. > > Ports that support L1.2 must support Latency Tolerance Reporting (LTR) > [sec 6.18]. When LTR is enabled, a device periodically sends LTR > messages. > > When ASPM puts a Link into L1, it chooses either L1.1 or L1.2 based on > LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD and recent LTR messages. If there's no LTR > information it looks like LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD doesn't matter and it > always chooses L1.2 [sec 5.5.1]. > > I don't see anything that writes PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_LTR_EN, so I don't > think Linux ever enables LTR. Some BIOSes apparently enable it > (Google for "LTR enabled"). I think this needs to be done in aspm.c file. i.e. whenever sub-system enables L1.2, it should enable LTR_EN also. > > 1) It seems like the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value should be computed based > on the latency requirements of downstream devices. How did you > come up with 55us? This is given by Tegra hardware folks. > > 2) The spec requires [sec 5.5.4] that LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD at both ends > of a Link be the same, but as far as I can see, there's no > requirement that it be the same across the whole system, so this > interface doesn't seem like quite the right approach. Agree that this patch would make 55us applicable to entire system > > 3) We must support kernels with multiple host bridge drivers compiled > in, and the weak/strong symbol approach doesn't support using the > correct version, e.g., if we merge this patch, every system > containing the tegra driver would use this function, even if the > hardware had a different host bridge. Also, if another driver > implemented its own version, we'd have duplicate symbols. Yes. Agree with this too. How about using quirks framework for this? Rajat / Thierry / Bjorn, any thoughts on this? > >> /* >> * The configuration space mapping on Tegra is somewhat similar to the ECAM >> * defined by PCIe. However it deviates a bit in how the 4 bits for extended >> @@ -2262,6 +2291,37 @@ static void tegra_pcie_apply_sw_fixup(struct tegra_pcie_port *port) >> value |= RP_VEND_XP_UPDATE_FC_THRESHOLD_T210; >> writel(value, port->base + RP_VEND_XP); >> } >> + >> + if (soc->has_aspm_l1ss) { >> + /* Set Common Mode Restore Time to 30us */ >> + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); >> + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_MASK; >> + value |= (0x1E << RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_SHIFT); >> + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); >> + >> + /* set T_Power_On to 70us */ >> + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); >> + value &= ~(RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_MASK | >> + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_MASK); >> + value |= (1 << RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_SHIFT) | >> + (7 << RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_SHIFT); >> + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); >> + >> + /* Following is based on clk_m being 19.2 MHz */ >> + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL); >> + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY_MASK; >> + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY; >> + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL); >> + >> + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL); >> + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY_MASK; >> + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY; >> + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_MASK; >> + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND; >> + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP_MASK; >> + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP; >> + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL); >> + } >> } >> /* >> * FIXME: If there are no PCIe cards attached, then calling this function >> @@ -2403,6 +2463,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra20_pcie = { >> .program_deskew_time = false, >> .updateFC_threshold = false, >> .has_aspm_l1 = false, >> + .has_aspm_l1ss = false, >> }; >> >> static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra30_pcie = { >> @@ -2425,6 +2486,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra30_pcie = { >> .program_deskew_time = false, >> .updateFC_threshold = false, >> .has_aspm_l1 = true, >> + .has_aspm_l1ss = false, >> }; >> >> static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra124_pcie = { >> @@ -2446,6 +2508,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra124_pcie = { >> .program_deskew_time = false, >> .updateFC_threshold = false, >> .has_aspm_l1 = true, >> + .has_aspm_l1ss = false, >> }; >> >> static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra210_pcie = { >> @@ -2475,6 +2538,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra210_pcie = { >> .program_deskew_time = true, >> .updateFC_threshold = true, >> .has_aspm_l1 = true, >> + .has_aspm_l1ss = true, >> }; >> >> static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra186_pcie = { >> @@ -2497,6 +2561,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra186_pcie = { >> .program_deskew_time = false, >> .updateFC_threshold = false, >> .has_aspm_l1 = true, >> + .has_aspm_l1ss = true, >> }; >> >> static const struct of_device_id tegra_pcie_of_match[] = { >> -- >> 2.7.4 >>
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 02:15:05PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > On Wednesday 08 November 2017 04:20 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 09:52:48AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > >>Programs T_cmrt (Commmon Mode Restore Time) and T_pwr_on (Power On) > >>values to get them reflected in ASPM-L1 Sub-States capability registers > >>Also adjusts internal counter values according to 19.2 MHz clk_m value > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> > ... > >>+u32 pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold(void) > >>+{ > >>+ /* LTR L1.2 Threshold = 55us for all ports */ > >>+ return ((0x37 << 16) | (0x02 << 29)); > > >I know you've already worked through this, but let me think out loud > >to try to figure this out myself. > > > >ASPM defines Link power states L0, L0s, and L1. L1 PM Substates > >extend that by adding L1.1 and L1.2. L1.2 presumably uses less power > >and has a longer exit delay than L1.1 [sec 5.5]. > > > >Ports that support L1.2 must support Latency Tolerance Reporting (LTR) > >[sec 6.18]. When LTR is enabled, a device periodically sends LTR > >messages. > > > >When ASPM puts a Link into L1, it chooses either L1.1 or L1.2 based on > >LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD and recent LTR messages. If there's no LTR > >information it looks like LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD doesn't matter and it > >always chooses L1.2 [sec 5.5.1]. > > > >I don't see anything that writes PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_LTR_EN, so I don't > >think Linux ever enables LTR. Some BIOSes apparently enable it > >(Google for "LTR enabled"). > > I think this needs to be done in aspm.c file. i.e. whenever > sub-system enables L1.2, it should enable > LTR_EN also. That probably makes sense. > >1) It seems like the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value should be computed based > > on the latency requirements of downstream devices. How did you > > come up with 55us? > > This is given by Tegra hardware folks. I do not understand why this value should be dependent on the host bridge. Can your hardware folks give more insight into this and how they derived 55us? I'm repeating myself, but the threshold (in combination with LTR information) affects whether we enter L1.1 or L1.2. If I understand correctly, this is all about the downstream devices and not at all about the host bridge. > ... > >3) We must support kernels with multiple host bridge drivers compiled > > in, and the weak/strong symbol approach doesn't support using the > > correct version, e.g., if we merge this patch, every system > > containing the tegra driver would use this function, even if the > > hardware had a different host bridge. Also, if another driver > > implemented its own version, we'd have duplicate symbols. > > Yes. Agree with this too. > How about using quirks framework for this? If my assumption that "the threshold should be based on (a) the latency requirements of downstream devices and (b) perhaps some global power vs performance tradeoff" is correct, this doesn't really fit into any kind of quirks or static computation, including the current LTR_L1_2_THRESHOLD_BITS. What happens if you keep all the Tegra-specific parts of this series, i.e., you program the T_cmrt, T_pwr_on, and CLKREQ values, and enable advertising of ASPM L1 capability, but leave out the pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold() parts? (BTW, I think you should reorder the series so you fix up all the delay values *before* you advertise ASPM L1.) I expect that to be functionally equivalent, but it would change the L1.1 vs L1.2 tradeoff, so it might have some performance impact, depending on what the downstream devices are. Bjorn
On Wednesday 08 November 2017 11:18 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 02:15:05PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: >> On Wednesday 08 November 2017 04:20 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 09:52:48AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: >>>> Programs T_cmrt (Commmon Mode Restore Time) and T_pwr_on (Power On) >>>> values to get them reflected in ASPM-L1 Sub-States capability registers >>>> Also adjusts internal counter values according to 19.2 MHz clk_m value >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> >> ... >>>> +u32 pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + /* LTR L1.2 Threshold = 55us for all ports */ >>>> + return ((0x37 << 16) | (0x02 << 29)); >>> I know you've already worked through this, but let me think out loud >>> to try to figure this out myself. >>> >>> ASPM defines Link power states L0, L0s, and L1. L1 PM Substates >>> extend that by adding L1.1 and L1.2. L1.2 presumably uses less power >>> and has a longer exit delay than L1.1 [sec 5.5]. >>> >>> Ports that support L1.2 must support Latency Tolerance Reporting (LTR) >>> [sec 6.18]. When LTR is enabled, a device periodically sends LTR >>> messages. >>> >>> When ASPM puts a Link into L1, it chooses either L1.1 or L1.2 based on >>> LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD and recent LTR messages. If there's no LTR >>> information it looks like LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD doesn't matter and it >>> always chooses L1.2 [sec 5.5.1]. >>> >>> I don't see anything that writes PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_LTR_EN, so I don't >>> think Linux ever enables LTR. Some BIOSes apparently enable it >>> (Google for "LTR enabled"). >> I think this needs to be done in aspm.c file. i.e. whenever >> sub-system enables L1.2, it should enable >> LTR_EN also. > That probably makes sense. > >>> 1) It seems like the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value should be computed based >>> on the latency requirements of downstream devices. How did you >>> come up with 55us? >> This is given by Tegra hardware folks. > I do not understand why this value should be dependent on the host > bridge. Can your hardware folks give more insight into this and how > they derived 55us? > > I'm repeating myself, but the threshold (in combination with LTR > information) affects whether we enter L1.1 or L1.2. If I understand > correctly, this is all about the downstream devices and not at all > about the host bridge. LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD time is for the device to enter into and exit from L1.2 state. 55us in case of Tegra is calculated based on the circuit design and different latencies involved in putting link through L1.2 entry-exit cycle. Spec says in 5.5.4 that , quote "When programming LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD Value and Scale fields, identical values must be programmed in both Ports" and my understanding behind spec saying it explicitly is that the end point should be made aware of what is the latency requirement for L1.2 from root port, just like the way end point makes root port aware of its L1.2 latency requirement by sending an LTR message upstream. By this, both root port and end point come to the same page while taking a decision to keep the link in L1.2 (or L1.1). Otherwise it may so happen that Tx would be in L1.2 and Rx would be in L1.1. Also, my understanding is that it is bound to be different on different platforms as it comes from the way hardware is designed. >> ... >>> 3) We must support kernels with multiple host bridge drivers compiled >>> in, and the weak/strong symbol approach doesn't support using the >>> correct version, e.g., if we merge this patch, every system >>> containing the tegra driver would use this function, even if the >>> hardware had a different host bridge. Also, if another driver >>> implemented its own version, we'd have duplicate symbols. >> Yes. Agree with this too. >> How about using quirks framework for this? > If my assumption that "the threshold should be based on (a) the > latency requirements of downstream devices and (b) perhaps some global > power vs performance tradeoff" is correct, this doesn't really fit > into any kind of quirks or static computation, including the current > LTR_L1_2_THRESHOLD_BITS. > > What happens if you keep all the Tegra-specific parts of this series, > i.e., you program the T_cmrt, T_pwr_on, and CLKREQ values, and enable > advertising of ASPM L1 capability, but leave out the > pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold() parts? (BTW, I think you should > reorder the series so you fix up all the delay values *before* you > advertise ASPM L1.) > > I expect that to be functionally equivalent, but it would change the > L1.1 vs L1.2 tradeoff, so it might have some performance impact, > depending on what the downstream devices are. > > Bjorn
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 03:37:10PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > > > On Wednesday 08 November 2017 11:18 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 02:15:05PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > >>On Wednesday 08 November 2017 04:20 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >>>On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 09:52:48AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > >>>>Programs T_cmrt (Commmon Mode Restore Time) and T_pwr_on (Power On) > >>>>values to get them reflected in ASPM-L1 Sub-States capability registers > >>>>Also adjusts internal counter values according to 19.2 MHz clk_m value > >>>> > >>>>Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> > >>... > >>>>+u32 pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold(void) > >>>>+{ > >>>>+ /* LTR L1.2 Threshold = 55us for all ports */ > >>>>+ return ((0x37 << 16) | (0x02 << 29)); > >>>I know you've already worked through this, but let me think out loud > >>>to try to figure this out myself. > >>> > >>>ASPM defines Link power states L0, L0s, and L1. L1 PM Substates > >>>extend that by adding L1.1 and L1.2. L1.2 presumably uses less power > >>>and has a longer exit delay than L1.1 [sec 5.5]. > >>> > >>>Ports that support L1.2 must support Latency Tolerance Reporting (LTR) > >>>[sec 6.18]. When LTR is enabled, a device periodically sends LTR > >>>messages. > >>> > >>>When ASPM puts a Link into L1, it chooses either L1.1 or L1.2 based on > >>>LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD and recent LTR messages. If there's no LTR > >>>information it looks like LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD doesn't matter and it > >>>always chooses L1.2 [sec 5.5.1]. > >>> > >>>I don't see anything that writes PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_LTR_EN, so I don't > >>>think Linux ever enables LTR. Some BIOSes apparently enable it > >>>(Google for "LTR enabled"). > >>I think this needs to be done in aspm.c file. i.e. whenever > >>sub-system enables L1.2, it should enable > >>LTR_EN also. > >That probably makes sense. > > > >>>1) It seems like the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value should be computed based > >>> on the latency requirements of downstream devices. How did you > >>> come up with 55us? > >>This is given by Tegra hardware folks. > >I do not understand why this value should be dependent on the host > >bridge. Can your hardware folks give more insight into this and how > >they derived 55us? > > > >I'm repeating myself, but the threshold (in combination with LTR > >information) affects whether we enter L1.1 or L1.2. If I understand > >correctly, this is all about the downstream devices and not at all > >about the host bridge. > > LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD time is for the device to enter into and exit > from L1.2 state. That doesn't feel right to me. Device characteristics are normally communicated via "capabilities" registers, not programmed by the OS in "control" registers. The OS needs to be able to configure arbitrary plug-in devices without having device-specific details built into it. Sec 7.33.3 says: LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD_Value – Along with the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD_Scale, this field indicates the LTR threshold used to determine if entry into L1 results in L1.1 (if enabled) or L1.2 (if enabled). The default value for this field is 00 0000 0000b. which does not actually say anything about the L1.2 entry/exit time. The L0s and L1 exit latencies are read-only fields in the Link Capabilities register. I don't completely understand how they work, but I think corresponding L1.2 exit latency information is reported via the "Port T(POWER_ON)" and "Port T(COMMON_MODE)" fields in the L1 PM Substates Capabilities register. These are HwInit fields and sec 5.5.4 says they depend on circuit components and AC coupling capacitors. > 55us in case of Tegra is calculated based on the circuit design and > different latencies involved in putting link through L1.2 entry-exit > cycle. What does Tegra report for Port T(POWER_ON) and Port T(COMMON_MODE)? It looks like the current lspci should decode everything in the L1 PM Substates capability: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/pciutils/pciutils.git/tree/ls-ecaps.c#n584 Can you collect that output? I notice that the L1 PM SS Capabilities register contains "Port T(POWER_ON)" and the Control 2 register contains the "T(POWER_ON)". The spec says "Port T(POWER_ON)" is what this port requires of the opposite end of the link, so apparently we should be configuring "T(POWER_ON)". We don't touch that, which looks like a hole in the current code. > Spec says in 5.5.4 that, quote "When programming LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD > Value and Scale fields, identical values must be programmed in both > Ports" and my understanding behind spec saying it explicitly is that > the end point should be made aware of what is the latency > requirement for L1.2 from root port, just like the way end point > makes root port aware of its L1.2 latency requirement by sending an > LTR message upstream. By this, both root port and end point come to > the same page while taking a decision to keep the link in L1.2 (or > L1.1). I don't think the root port itself has a latency requirement. The *endpoints* provide functionality that may be latency sensitive. The OS needs to configure the path between the root port and the endpoint in such a way that we can satisfy the endpoint's requirements. > Otherwise it may so happen that Tx would be in L1.2 and Rx would be > in L1.1. Also, my understanding is that it is bound to be different > on different platforms as it comes from the way hardware is > designed. > >What happens if you keep all the Tegra-specific parts of this series, > >i.e., you program the T_cmrt, T_pwr_on, and CLKREQ values, and enable > >advertising of ASPM L1 capability, but leave out the > >pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold() parts? (BTW, I think you should > >reorder the series so you fix up all the delay values *before* you > >advertise ASPM L1.) > > > >I expect that to be functionally equivalent, but it would change the > >L1.1 vs L1.2 tradeoff, so it might have some performance impact, > >depending on what the downstream devices are. I'm still interested in this part of my question. I'm willing to apply patches 2, 3, 4 (in the order 4, 3, 2 and omitting the pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold() part of patch 3) even if we haven't figured out patch 1. If we did this much, we should be able to use lspci to manually compute what we think *should* happen and use setpci to set the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD and see if it works as expected. Bjorn
On Saturday 11 November 2017 02:59 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 03:37:10PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: >> >> On Wednesday 08 November 2017 11:18 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 02:15:05PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: >>>> On Wednesday 08 November 2017 04:20 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 09:52:48AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: >>>>>> Programs T_cmrt (Commmon Mode Restore Time) and T_pwr_on (Power On) >>>>>> values to get them reflected in ASPM-L1 Sub-States capability registers >>>>>> Also adjusts internal counter values according to 19.2 MHz clk_m value >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> >>>> ... >>>>>> +u32 pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold(void) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + /* LTR L1.2 Threshold = 55us for all ports */ >>>>>> + return ((0x37 << 16) | (0x02 << 29)); >>>>> I know you've already worked through this, but let me think out loud >>>>> to try to figure this out myself. >>>>> >>>>> ASPM defines Link power states L0, L0s, and L1. L1 PM Substates >>>>> extend that by adding L1.1 and L1.2. L1.2 presumably uses less power >>>>> and has a longer exit delay than L1.1 [sec 5.5]. >>>>> >>>>> Ports that support L1.2 must support Latency Tolerance Reporting (LTR) >>>>> [sec 6.18]. When LTR is enabled, a device periodically sends LTR >>>>> messages. >>>>> >>>>> When ASPM puts a Link into L1, it chooses either L1.1 or L1.2 based on >>>>> LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD and recent LTR messages. If there's no LTR >>>>> information it looks like LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD doesn't matter and it >>>>> always chooses L1.2 [sec 5.5.1]. >>>>> >>>>> I don't see anything that writes PCI_EXP_DEVCTL2_LTR_EN, so I don't >>>>> think Linux ever enables LTR. Some BIOSes apparently enable it >>>>> (Google for "LTR enabled"). >>>> I think this needs to be done in aspm.c file. i.e. whenever >>>> sub-system enables L1.2, it should enable >>>> LTR_EN also. >>> That probably makes sense. >>> >>>>> 1) It seems like the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value should be computed based >>>>> on the latency requirements of downstream devices. How did you >>>>> come up with 55us? >>>> This is given by Tegra hardware folks. >>> I do not understand why this value should be dependent on the host >>> bridge. Can your hardware folks give more insight into this and how >>> they derived 55us? >>> >>> I'm repeating myself, but the threshold (in combination with LTR >>> information) affects whether we enter L1.1 or L1.2. If I understand >>> correctly, this is all about the downstream devices and not at all >>> about the host bridge. >> LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD time is for the device to enter into and exit >> from L1.2 state. > That doesn't feel right to me. Device characteristics are normally > communicated via "capabilities" registers, not programmed by the OS in > "control" registers. The OS needs to be able to configure arbitrary > plug-in devices without having device-specific details built into it. But there is no capability register/field for LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD either for root ports or end points > > Sec 7.33.3 says: > > LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD_Value – Along with the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD_Scale, > this field indicates the LTR threshold used to determine if entry > into L1 results in L1.1 (if enabled) or L1.2 (if enabled). The > default value for this field is 00 0000 0000b. > > which does not actually say anything about the L1.2 entry/exit time. > > The L0s and L1 exit latencies are read-only fields in the Link > Capabilities register. I don't completely understand how they work, > but I think corresponding L1.2 exit latency information is reported > via the "Port T(POWER_ON)" and "Port T(COMMON_MODE)" fields in the L1 > PM Substates Capabilities register. These are HwInit fields and sec > 5.5.4 says they depend on circuit components and AC coupling > capacitors. IMHO, I don't think that is the case, because, otherwise, there is no need for an end point to send LTR messages to control link's entry into L1.2 right? and I have seen some WiFi chips sending different LTR messages depending on whether WiFi is connected to any Access Point (AP) or not. > >> 55us in case of Tegra is calculated based on the circuit design and >> different latencies involved in putting link through L1.2 entry-exit >> cycle. > What does Tegra report for Port T(POWER_ON) and Port T(COMMON_MODE)? > It looks like the current lspci should decode everything in the L1 PM > Substates capability: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/pciutils/pciutils.git/tree/ls-ecaps.c#n584 > Can you collect that output? Here is the L1 SS registers dumps for both root port and end point 00:01.0 PCI bridge: NVIDIA Corporation Device 0fae (rev a1) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode]) Capabilities: [140 v1] L1 PM Substates L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+ PortCommonModeRestoreTime=30us PortTPowerOnTime=70us L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ T_CommonMode=30us LTR1.2_Threshold=56320ns L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=70us 01:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller: Sandisk Corp Device 5001 (prog-if 02 [NVM Express]) Capabilities: [2c0 v1] L1 PM Substates L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+ PortCommonModeRestoreTime=10us PortTPowerOnTime=10us L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=56320ns L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=70us > I notice that the L1 PM SS Capabilities register contains "Port > T(POWER_ON)" and the Control 2 register contains the "T(POWER_ON)". > The spec says "Port T(POWER_ON)" is what this port requires of the > opposite end of the link, so apparently we should be configuring > "T(POWER_ON)". We don't touch that, which looks like a hole in the > current code. I see that T (POWER_ON) present in capability registers of both upstream and downstream ports are compared ( https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c?h=v4.14-rc8#n467 ) and the maximum of these two is written to control registers of both upstream and downstream ports ( https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c?h=v4.14-rc8#n650 ) >> Spec says in 5.5.4 that, quote "When programming LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD >> Value and Scale fields, identical values must be programmed in both >> Ports" and my understanding behind spec saying it explicitly is that >> the end point should be made aware of what is the latency >> requirement for L1.2 from root port, just like the way end point >> makes root port aware of its L1.2 latency requirement by sending an >> LTR message upstream. By this, both root port and end point come to >> the same page while taking a decision to keep the link in L1.2 (or >> L1.1). > I don't think the root port itself has a latency requirement. The > *endpoints* provide functionality that may be latency sensitive. The > OS needs to configure the path between the root port and the endpoint > in such a way that we can satisfy the endpoint's requirements. But, if that is the case, it doesn't make sense spec asking us to write the same value to both ports. Or is there a different way to interpret it?? > >> Otherwise it may so happen that Tx would be in L1.2 and Rx would be >> in L1.1. Also, my understanding is that it is bound to be different >> on different platforms as it comes from the way hardware is >> designed. >>> What happens if you keep all the Tegra-specific parts of this series, >>> i.e., you program the T_cmrt, T_pwr_on, and CLKREQ values, and enable >>> advertising of ASPM L1 capability, but leave out the >>> pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold() parts? (BTW, I think you should >>> reorder the series so you fix up all the delay values *before* you >>> advertise ASPM L1.) >>> >>> I expect that to be functionally equivalent, but it would change the >>> L1.1 vs L1.2 tradeoff, so it might have some performance impact, >>> depending on what the downstream devices are. > I'm still interested in this part of my question. I'm willing > to apply patches 2, 3, 4 (in the order 4, 3, 2 and omitting the > pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold() part of patch 3) even if we > haven't figured out patch 1. > > If we did this much, we should be able to use lspci to manually > compute what we think *should* happen and use setpci to set the > LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD and see if it works as expected. I'll work on this. > > Bjorn
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 05:21:47PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > On Saturday 11 November 2017 02:59 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 03:37:10PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > >>LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD time is for the device to enter into and exit > >>from L1.2 state. > >That doesn't feel right to me. Device characteristics are normally > >communicated via "capabilities" registers, not programmed by the OS in > >"control" registers. The OS needs to be able to configure arbitrary > >plug-in devices without having device-specific details built into it. > But there is no capability register/field for LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD either for > root ports or end points Sorry, I didn't state that clearly. I agree that LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD should be the time required to enter and exit the L1.2 state. What doesn't make sense to me is that the OS would have to have device-specific quirks built into it instead of being able to discover what it needs via "capabilities" registers. If it did, we would have no way to configure a plug-in switch unless we added a quirk for every device. That would be a serious design error in the L1 Substates feature. Assume we have an Endpoint connected to a Root Port. We should set LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD to the time it takes to transition the Link from L0 to L1.2 and back to L0. Then we will enter L1.2 only if the Endpoint has reported that it can tolerate at least that much latency. From sec 5.5.3.3.1, Figures 5-16 and 5-17, it looks like the latency to go from L1.0 to L1.2 and back to L0 should be at least the sum of: T(POWER_OFF) max 2us (from Table 5-11) T(L1.2) min 4us (from Table 5-11) T(POWER_ON) from L1 PM Substates Control 2 register T(COMMONMODE) from L1 PM Substates Control 1 register This doesn't include (a) the time from L0 to L1.0 and (b) the gap between T(POWER_ON) and T(COMMONMODE). I don't know how to learn those. But I think we know how to compute T(POWER_ON) and T(COMMONMODE) by taking the max of Port T_POWER_ON and Port Common_Mode_Restore_Time for the two ends of the Link. Your lspci output (below) shows: Root Port: Port T_POWER_ON = 70us Root Port: Port Common_Mode_Restore_Time = 30us Endpoint: Port T_POWER_ON = 10us Endpoint: Port Common_Mode_Restore_Time = 10us That would make T(POWER_ON) = max(70us, 10us) = 70us and T(COMMONMODE) = max(30us, 10us) = 30us. So I would think the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD should be at least 2us + 4us + 70us + 30us = 106us Your hardware folks came up with 55us, but I don't know how. I guess they're using information not visible to the OS? Can you explain where I'm going wrong in my calculations? I think we should be able to relate the values from the L1 PM Substates Capabilities register to the timing diagrams in sec 5.5.3.3.1 somehow. > Here is the L1 SS registers dumps for both root port and end point > 00:01.0 PCI bridge: NVIDIA Corporation Device 0fae (rev a1) (prog-if > 00 [Normal decode]) > Capabilities: [140 v1] L1 PM Substates > L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ > L1_PM_Substates+ > PortCommonModeRestoreTime=30us PortTPowerOnTime=70us > L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ > T_CommonMode=30us LTR1.2_Threshold=56320ns > L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=70us > > 01:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller: Sandisk Corp Device 5001 > (prog-if 02 [NVM Express]) > Capabilities: [2c0 v1] L1 PM Substates > L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ > L1_PM_Substates+ > PortCommonModeRestoreTime=10us PortTPowerOnTime=10us > L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ > T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=56320ns > L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=70us Bjorn
On Wednesday 15 November 2017 04:43 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 05:21:47PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: >> On Saturday 11 November 2017 02:59 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 03:37:10PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: >>>> LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD time is for the device to enter into and exit >>> >from L1.2 state. >>> That doesn't feel right to me. Device characteristics are normally >>> communicated via "capabilities" registers, not programmed by the OS in >>> "control" registers. The OS needs to be able to configure arbitrary >>> plug-in devices without having device-specific details built into it. >> But there is no capability register/field for LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD either for >> root ports or end points > Sorry, I didn't state that clearly. I agree that LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD > should be the time required to enter and exit the L1.2 state. > > What doesn't make sense to me is that the OS would have to have > device-specific quirks built into it instead of being able to discover > what it needs via "capabilities" registers. If it did, we would have > no way to configure a plug-in switch unless we added a quirk for every > device. That would be a serious design error in the L1 Substates > feature. > > Assume we have an Endpoint connected to a Root Port. We should set > LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD to the time it takes to transition the Link from L0 > to L1.2 and back to L0. Then we will enter L1.2 only if the Endpoint > has reported that it can tolerate at least that much latency. > > From sec 5.5.3.3.1, Figures 5-16 and 5-17, it looks like the latency > to go from L1.0 to L1.2 and back to L0 should be at least the sum of: > > T(POWER_OFF) max 2us (from Table 5-11) > T(L1.2) min 4us (from Table 5-11) > T(POWER_ON) from L1 PM Substates Control 2 register > T(COMMONMODE) from L1 PM Substates Control 1 register > > This doesn't include (a) the time from L0 to L1.0 and (b) the gap > between T(POWER_ON) and T(COMMONMODE). I don't know how to learn > those. But I think we know how to compute T(POWER_ON) and > T(COMMONMODE) by taking the max of Port T_POWER_ON and Port > Common_Mode_Restore_Time for the two ends of the Link. > > Your lspci output (below) shows: > > Root Port: Port T_POWER_ON = 70us > Root Port: Port Common_Mode_Restore_Time = 30us > Endpoint: Port T_POWER_ON = 10us > Endpoint: Port Common_Mode_Restore_Time = 10us > > That would make T(POWER_ON) = max(70us, 10us) = 70us > and T(COMMONMODE) = max(30us, 10us) = 30us. > > So I would think the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD should be at least > > 2us + 4us + 70us + 30us = 106us > > Your hardware folks came up with 55us, but I don't know how. I guess > they're using information not visible to the OS? > > Can you explain where I'm going wrong in my calculations? I think we > should be able to relate the values from the L1 PM Substates > Capabilities register to the timing diagrams in sec 5.5.3.3.1 somehow. Your calculations are correct. This is in fact the value we used initially, but, later on Tegra hardware is tweaked by which T_POWER_ON is brought down to 35us and T_cmrt to 14us (to achieve better power savings for a specific endpoint) thereby arriving at 55us of LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value. Its my mistake that I didn't update these new values for T_PowerOn and T_cmrt. Also, I got the confirmation from our hardware folks that, it is better to go with 70us and 30us for T_PowerOn and T_cmrt respectively and stick to 106us of LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD to be able to work with variety of end points. Now that, having a strong API implementation to supply LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD from host controller driver (and weak API implementation in aspm sub-system) doesn't seem correct, do you suggest to derive LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value (like you mentioned above) and then update it in both RP and EP L1SS control registers? Though it doesn't include gaps (a) and (b) above, I think it is still the best way to come up a suitable LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value without having to be supplied by host controller drivers. >> Here is the L1 SS registers dumps for both root port and end point >> 00:01.0 PCI bridge: NVIDIA Corporation Device 0fae (rev a1) (prog-if >> 00 [Normal decode]) >> Capabilities: [140 v1] L1 PM Substates >> L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ >> L1_PM_Substates+ >> PortCommonModeRestoreTime=30us PortTPowerOnTime=70us >> L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ >> T_CommonMode=30us LTR1.2_Threshold=56320ns >> L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=70us >> >> 01:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller: Sandisk Corp Device 5001 >> (prog-if 02 [NVM Express]) >> Capabilities: [2c0 v1] L1 PM Substates >> L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ >> L1_PM_Substates+ >> PortCommonModeRestoreTime=10us PortTPowerOnTime=10us >> L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ >> T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=56320ns >> L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=70us > Bjorn
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:35:21PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > On Wednesday 15 November 2017 04:43 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 05:21:47PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > >>On Saturday 11 November 2017 02:59 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >>>On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 03:37:10PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > >>>>LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD time is for the device to enter into and exit > >>>>from L1.2 state. > >>>That doesn't feel right to me. Device characteristics are normally > >>>communicated via "capabilities" registers, not programmed by the OS in > >>>"control" registers. The OS needs to be able to configure arbitrary > >>>plug-in devices without having device-specific details built into it. > >>But there is no capability register/field for LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD either for > >>root ports or end points > >Sorry, I didn't state that clearly. I agree that LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD > >should be the time required to enter and exit the L1.2 state. > > > >What doesn't make sense to me is that the OS would have to have > >device-specific quirks built into it instead of being able to discover > >what it needs via "capabilities" registers. If it did, we would have > >no way to configure a plug-in switch unless we added a quirk for every > >device. That would be a serious design error in the L1 Substates > >feature. > > > >Assume we have an Endpoint connected to a Root Port. We should set > >LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD to the time it takes to transition the Link from L0 > >to L1.2 and back to L0. Then we will enter L1.2 only if the Endpoint > >has reported that it can tolerate at least that much latency. > > > > From sec 5.5.3.3.1, Figures 5-16 and 5-17, it looks like the latency > >to go from L1.0 to L1.2 and back to L0 should be at least the sum of: > > > > T(POWER_OFF) max 2us (from Table 5-11) > > T(L1.2) min 4us (from Table 5-11) > > T(POWER_ON) from L1 PM Substates Control 2 register > > T(COMMONMODE) from L1 PM Substates Control 1 register > > > >This doesn't include (a) the time from L0 to L1.0 and (b) the gap > >between T(POWER_ON) and T(COMMONMODE). I don't know how to learn > >those. But I think we know how to compute T(POWER_ON) and > >T(COMMONMODE) by taking the max of Port T_POWER_ON and Port > >Common_Mode_Restore_Time for the two ends of the Link. > > > >Your lspci output (below) shows: > > > > Root Port: Port T_POWER_ON = 70us > > Root Port: Port Common_Mode_Restore_Time = 30us > > Endpoint: Port T_POWER_ON = 10us > > Endpoint: Port Common_Mode_Restore_Time = 10us > > > >That would make T(POWER_ON) = max(70us, 10us) = 70us > >and T(COMMONMODE) = max(30us, 10us) = 30us. > > > >So I would think the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD should be at least > > > > 2us + 4us + 70us + 30us = 106us > > > >Your hardware folks came up with 55us, but I don't know how. I > >guess they're using information not visible to the OS? > > > >Can you explain where I'm going wrong in my calculations? I think > >we should be able to relate the values from the L1 PM Substates > >Capabilities register to the timing diagrams in sec 5.5.3.3.1 > >somehow. > > Your calculations are correct. This is in fact the value we used > initially, but, later on Tegra hardware is tweaked by which > T_POWER_ON is brought down to 35us and T_cmrt to 14us (to achieve > better power savings for a specific endpoint) thereby arriving at > 55us of LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value. Its my mistake that I didn't > update these new values for T_PowerOn and T_cmrt. > Also, I got the confirmation from our hardware folks that, it is > better to go with 70us and 30us for T_PowerOn and T_cmrt > respectively and stick to 106us of LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD to be able to > work with variety of end points. If you need to make your driver update the values reported via PCI_L1SS_CAP, that makes sense. I would guess it might depend on the hardware implementation, though, so maybe it should be encoded in DT? > Now that, having a strong API implementation to supply > LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD from host controller driver (and weak API > implementation in aspm sub-system) doesn't seem correct, do you > suggest to derive LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value (like you mentioned > above) and then update it in both RP and EP L1SS control registers? > Though it doesn't include gaps (a) and (b) above, I think it is > still the best way to come up a suitable LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value > without having to be supplied by host controller drivers. Yes. I think we should do something like the patch below. I am still curious about this because I *think* none of this will make any difference unless firmware is enabling LTR. Does firmware enable LTR in your system? I do think we should also make Linux enable LTR when appropriate; I'm just wondering why people are tripping over the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD thing. Bjorn commit 8390e9bb6a809bb2201ffd29f2a37af6170b1606 Author: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> Date: Fri Nov 17 14:26:42 2017 -0600 PCI/ASPM: Calculate LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD from device characteristics Per PCIe r3.1, sec 5.5.1, LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD determines whether we enter the L1.2 Link state when CLKREQ# is de-asserted: if L1.2 is enabled and downstream devices have reported via LTR that they can tolerate latency of at least LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD, we must enter L1.2. The implication is that LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD is the time required to transition the Link from L0 to L1.2 and back to L0. Previously we set LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD to a fixed value of 163840ns (163.84us), but that doesn't account for the because the L1.2 entry and exit times depend on the devices on both ends of the Link. We already set Common_Mode_Restore_Time and T_POWER_ON on both ends of the Link to the higher of the values reported in the L1 PM Substates Capabilities of the Link ends. Use those to compute LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD: 2us T(POWER_OFF) + 4us T(L1.2) + T(POWER_ON) + T(COMMONMODE) = LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD Note that while firmware may enable LTR, Linux itself currently does not enable LTR. When L1.2 is enabled but LTR is not, LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD is ignored and we always enter L1.2 when it is enabled and CLKREQ# is de-asserted. Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c index 9783e10da3a9..8d5ba9bdf24b 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c @@ -43,18 +43,6 @@ #define ASPM_STATE_ALL (ASPM_STATE_L0S | ASPM_STATE_L1 | \ ASPM_STATE_L1SS) -/* - * When L1 substates are enabled, the LTR L1.2 threshold is a timing parameter - * that decides whether L1.1 or L1.2 is entered (Refer PCIe spec for details). - * Not sure is there is a way to "calculate" this on the fly, but maybe we - * could turn it into a parameter in future. This value has been taken from - * the following files from Intel's coreboot (which is the only code I found - * to have used this): - * https://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot-gerrit/2015-March/021134.html - * https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/8832/ - */ -#define LTR_L1_2_THRESHOLD_BITS ((1 << 21) | (1 << 23) | (1 << 30)) - struct aspm_latency { u32 l0s; /* L0s latency (nsec) */ u32 l1; /* L1 latency (nsec) */ @@ -333,6 +321,31 @@ static u32 calc_l1ss_pwron(struct pci_dev *pdev, u32 scale, u32 val) return 0; } +static void encode_l12_threshold(u32 threshold_us, u32 *scale, u32 *value) +{ + u64 threshold_ns = threshold_us * 1000; + + if (threshold_ns < 32) { + *scale = 0; + *value = threshold_ns; + } else if (threshold_ns < 1024) { + *scale = 1; + *value = threshold_ns >> 5; + } else if (threshold_ns < 32768) { + *scale = 2; + *value = threshold_ns >> 10; + } else if (threshold_ns < 1048576) { + *scale = 3; + *value = threshold_ns >> 15; + } else if (threshold_ns < 33554432) { + *scale = 4; + *value = threshold_ns >> 20; + } else { + *scale = 5; + *value = threshold_ns >> 25; + } +} + struct aspm_register_info { u32 support:2; u32 enabled:2; @@ -443,6 +456,7 @@ static void aspm_calc_l1ss_info(struct pcie_link_state *link, struct aspm_register_info *dwreg) { u32 val1, val2, scale1, scale2; + u32 t_common_mode, t_power_on, l1_2_threshold, scale, value; link->l1ss.up_cap_ptr = upreg->l1ss_cap_ptr; link->l1ss.dw_cap_ptr = dwreg->l1ss_cap_ptr; @@ -454,16 +468,7 @@ static void aspm_calc_l1ss_info(struct pcie_link_state *link, /* Choose the greater of the two Port Common_Mode_Restore_Times */ val1 = (upreg->l1ss_cap & PCI_L1SS_CAP_CM_RESTORE_TIME) >> 8; val2 = (dwreg->l1ss_cap & PCI_L1SS_CAP_CM_RESTORE_TIME) >> 8; - if (val1 > val2) - link->l1ss.ctl1 |= val1 << 8; - else - link->l1ss.ctl1 |= val2 << 8; - - /* - * We currently use LTR L1.2 threshold to be fixed constant picked from - * Intel's coreboot. - */ - link->l1ss.ctl1 |= LTR_L1_2_THRESHOLD_BITS; + t_common_mode = max(val1, val2); /* Choose the greater of the two Port T_POWER_ON times */ val1 = (upreg->l1ss_cap & PCI_L1SS_CAP_P_PWR_ON_VALUE) >> 19; @@ -472,10 +477,27 @@ static void aspm_calc_l1ss_info(struct pcie_link_state *link, scale2 = (dwreg->l1ss_cap & PCI_L1SS_CAP_P_PWR_ON_SCALE) >> 16; if (calc_l1ss_pwron(link->pdev, scale1, val1) > - calc_l1ss_pwron(link->downstream, scale2, val2)) + calc_l1ss_pwron(link->downstream, scale2, val2)) { link->l1ss.ctl2 |= scale1 | (val1 << 3); - else + t_power_on = calc_l1ss_pwron(link->pdev, scale1, val1); + } else { link->l1ss.ctl2 |= scale2 | (val2 << 3); + t_power_on = calc_l1ss_pwron(link->downstream, scale2, val2); + } + + /* + * Set LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD to the time required to transition the + * Link from L0 to L1.2 and back to L0 so we enter L1.2 only if + * downstream devices report (via LTR) that they can tolerate at + * least that much latency. + * + * Based on PCIe r3.1, sec 5.5.3.3.1, Figures 5-16 and 5-17, and + * Table 5-11. T(POWER_OFF) is at most 2us and T(L1.2) is at + * least 4us. + */ + l1_2_threshold = 2 + 4 + t_common_mode + t_power_on; + encode_l12_threshold(l1_2_threshold, &scale, &value); + link->l1ss.ctl1 |= t_common_mode << 8 | scale << 29 | value << 16; } static void pcie_aspm_cap_init(struct pcie_link_state *link, int blacklist)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c index e1526cc5d381..08da67a82a2d 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ #include <linux/of_pci.h> #include <linux/of_platform.h> #include <linux/pci.h> +#include <linux/pci-aspm.h> #include <linux/phy/phy.h> #include <linux/platform_device.h> #include <linux/reset.h> @@ -191,6 +192,27 @@ #define RP_PRIV_XP_DL 0x494 #define RP_PRIV_XP_DL_GEN2_UPD_FC_TSHOLD (0x1ff << 1) +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL 0xC00 +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_MASK (0xFF << 8) +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_SHIFT 8 +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_MASK (0x3 << 16) +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_SHIFT 16 +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_MASK (0x1F << 19) +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_SHIFT 19 +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_HIDE_CAP (0x1 << 24) + +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL 0xC04 +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY_MASK 0x1FFF +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY 0x26 + +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL 0xC08 +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY_MASK 0x1FFF +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY 0x4D +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_MASK (0xFF << 13) +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND (0x13 << 13) +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP_MASK (0xF << 21) +#define RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP (0x2 << 21) + #define RP_RX_HDR_LIMIT 0xe00 #define RP_RX_HDR_LIMIT_PW_MASK (0xff << 8) #define RP_RX_HDR_LIMIT_PW (0x0e << 8) @@ -331,6 +353,7 @@ struct tegra_pcie_soc { bool program_deskew_time; bool updateFC_threshold; bool has_aspm_l1; + bool has_aspm_l1ss; }; static inline struct tegra_msi *to_tegra_msi(struct msi_controller *chip) @@ -423,6 +446,12 @@ static inline u32 pads_readl(struct tegra_pcie *pcie, unsigned long offset) return readl(pcie->pads + offset); } +u32 pcie_aspm_get_ltr_l_1_2_threshold(void) +{ + /* LTR L1.2 Threshold = 55us for all ports */ + return ((0x37 << 16) | (0x02 << 29)); +} + /* * The configuration space mapping on Tegra is somewhat similar to the ECAM * defined by PCIe. However it deviates a bit in how the 4 bits for extended @@ -2262,6 +2291,37 @@ static void tegra_pcie_apply_sw_fixup(struct tegra_pcie_port *port) value |= RP_VEND_XP_UPDATE_FC_THRESHOLD_T210; writel(value, port->base + RP_VEND_XP); } + + if (soc->has_aspm_l1ss) { + /* Set Common Mode Restore Time to 30us */ + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_MASK; + value |= (0x1E << RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_CM_RTIME_SHIFT); + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); + + /* set T_Power_On to 70us */ + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); + value &= ~(RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_MASK | + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_MASK); + value |= (1 << RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_SCL_SHIFT) | + (7 << RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL_T_PWRN_VAL_SHIFT); + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_CTL); + + /* Following is based on clk_m being 19.2 MHz */ + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL); + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY_MASK; + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL_PWR_OFF_DLY; + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_1_CTL); + + value = readl(port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL); + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY_MASK; + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_T_L1_2_DLY; + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_MASK; + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND; + value &= ~RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP_MASK; + value |= RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL_MICROSECOND_COMP; + writel(value, port->base + RP_L1_PM_SUBSTATES_2_CTL); + } } /* * FIXME: If there are no PCIe cards attached, then calling this function @@ -2403,6 +2463,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra20_pcie = { .program_deskew_time = false, .updateFC_threshold = false, .has_aspm_l1 = false, + .has_aspm_l1ss = false, }; static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra30_pcie = { @@ -2425,6 +2486,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra30_pcie = { .program_deskew_time = false, .updateFC_threshold = false, .has_aspm_l1 = true, + .has_aspm_l1ss = false, }; static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra124_pcie = { @@ -2446,6 +2508,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra124_pcie = { .program_deskew_time = false, .updateFC_threshold = false, .has_aspm_l1 = true, + .has_aspm_l1ss = false, }; static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra210_pcie = { @@ -2475,6 +2538,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra210_pcie = { .program_deskew_time = true, .updateFC_threshold = true, .has_aspm_l1 = true, + .has_aspm_l1ss = true, }; static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra186_pcie = { @@ -2497,6 +2561,7 @@ static const struct tegra_pcie_soc tegra186_pcie = { .program_deskew_time = false, .updateFC_threshold = false, .has_aspm_l1 = true, + .has_aspm_l1ss = true, }; static const struct of_device_id tegra_pcie_of_match[] = {
Programs T_cmrt (Commmon Mode Restore Time) and T_pwr_on (Power On) values to get them reflected in ASPM-L1 Sub-States capability registers Also adjusts internal counter values according to 19.2 MHz clk_m value Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> --- V2: * no change in this patch drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+)