On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 01:47:35PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Ah, I put that print at the top of the function - on second look now I
> see that there's an awkward mix of per-lane and global data, and pwr_cnt
> is actually the latter. Sure enough, moving the print past that check I
> only see it once.
Hi Robin, thanks for re-testing and no worries.
>
> However, I still don't think blindly enabling all the lanes is the right
> thing to do either; I'd imagine something like the (untested) diff below
> would be more appropriate. That would then seem to balance with what
> power_off is doing.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll make sure to test it appropriately
before sending v6.
Thanks!
Geraldo Nascimento
>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
>
> ----->8-----
> diff --git a/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c
> index bd44af36c67a..a34a983db16c 100644
> --- a/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c
> +++ b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c
> @@ -160,11 +160,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
>
> guard(mutex)(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>
> - if (rk_phy->pwr_cnt++) {
> - return 0;
> - }
> -
> - err = reset_control_deassert(rk_phy->phy_rst);
> + if (rk_phy->pwr_cnt++)
> + err = reset_control_deassert(rk_phy->phy_rst);
> if (err) {
> dev_err(&phy->dev, "deassert phy_rst err %d\n", err);
> rk_phy->pwr_cnt--;
> @@ -181,6 +178,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
> HIWORD_UPDATE(!PHY_LANE_IDLE_OFF,
> PHY_LANE_IDLE_MASK,
> PHY_LANE_IDLE_A_SHIFT + inst->index));
> + if (rk_phy->pwr_cnt)
> + return 0;
>
> /*
> * No documented timeout value for phy operation below,
>
