Re: [PATCH v2] schemas: pci: Document PCIe T_POWER_ON
Lukas Wunner <[email protected]> Thu, 13 Nov 2025 09:36:48 +0100
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.devicetree-spec,org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 09:33:54AM +0530, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote: > On 11/10/2025 6:11 PM, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 04:59:47PM +0530, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote: > > > From PCIe r6, sec 5.5.4 & Table 5-11 in sec 5.5.5 T_POWER_ON is the > > Please use the latest spec version as reference, i.e. PCIe r7.0. > ack. > > > minimum amount of time(in us) that each component must wait in L1.2.Exit > > > after sampling CLKREQ# asserted before actively driving the interface to > > > ensure no device is ever actively driving into an unpowered component and > > > these values are based on the components and AC coupling capacitors used > > > in the connection linking the two components. > > > > > > This property should be used to indicate the T_POWER_ON for each Root Port. > > What's the difference between this property and the Port T_POWER_ON_Scale > > and T_POWER_ON_Value in the L1 PM Substates Capabilities Register? > > > > Why do you need this in the device tree even though it's available > > in the register? > > This value is same as L1 PM substates value, some controllers needs to > update this > value before enumeration as hardware might now program this value > correctly[1]. > > [1]: [PATCH] PCI: qcom: Program correct T_POWER_ON value for L1.2 exit > timing > > <https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/> Per PCIe r7.0 sec 7.8.3.2, all fields in the L1 PM Substates Capabilities Register are of type "HwInit", which sec 7.4 defines as: "Register bits are permitted, as an implementation option, to be hard-coded, initialized by system/device firmware, or initialized by hardware mechanisms such as pin strapping or nonvolatile storage. Initialization by system firmware is permitted only for system-integrated devices. Bits must be fixed in value and read-only after initialization." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ These bits are not supposed to be writable by the operating system, so what you're doing in that patch is not spec-compliant. I think it needs to be made explicit in the devicetree schema that the property is only intended for non-compliant hardware which allows (and requires) the operating system to initialize the register. Maybe it makes more sense to have a property which specifies the raw 32-bit register contents, instead of having a property for each individual field. Otherwise you'll have to amend the schema whenever the PCIe spec extends the register with additional fields. Thanks, Lukas