On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 01:35:08PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 08:15:39PM GMT, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 11:48:39PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/pwrctrl/core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pwrctrl/core.c
> > > +static void pci_pwrctrl_perst_deassert(struct pci_pwrctrl *pwrctrl)
> > > +{
> > > + /* Bail out early to avoid the delay if PERST# is not available */
> > > + if (!pwrctrl->perst)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + msleep(PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS);
> > > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(pwrctrl->perst, 0);
> >
> > What if PERST# was already deasserted? On one hand, we're wasting time
> > here if so. On the other, you're not accomplishing your spec-compliance
> > goal if it was.
> >
>
> If controller drivers populate 'pci_host_bridge::perst', then they should not
> deassert PERST# as they don't control the supplies. I've mentioned it in the
> cover letter, but I will mention it in commit message also.
Sorry, I think I partially read that, but didn't really grasp how it fit
in here.
I commented on patch 3 where you try to implement this. IIUC, you're
making excessive assumptions about the use of pwrctrl.
Brian
