Hi Marek, On Mon, 22 Sept 2025 at 17:17, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/22/25 12:10 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> I have instead posted what I think are proper fixes for that SError: > >> > >> PCI: rcar-gen4: Add missing 1ms delay after PWR reset assertion > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pci/patch/20250918030058.330960-1-marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > I used v3 instead. > > While that patch seems to fix the SError after a hard reset (hardware > > reset), it is not sufficient after a soft reset (typing "reboot"). > > > >> clk: renesas: cpg-mssr: Add missing 1ms delay into reset toggle callback > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-clk/patch/20250918030552.331389-1-marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > This does not fix the SError, as expected (pcie-rcar-gen4.c does not > > call reset_control_reset(), but reset_control_{,de}assert()). > > > >> clk: renesas: cpg-mssr: Read back reset registers to assure values latched > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-clk/patch/20250918030723.331634-1-marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > I used v2 instead, which seems to fix the SError. > > Those three patches have to be used together, and this inverted break > condition fix should be applied too. > > The first two are corrections which align the code behavior with > reference manual. This inverted break fix is another correction. The > last patch in the list above actually fixes the asynchronized reset > behavior and turns it into synchronized reset behavior, therefore fixing > the SError in the process. FTR, I always had the inverted break condition fix applied. All 3 fixes on top should be fine. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
