RE: [PATCH net-next 1/1] r8169: enable RTL8125 ASPM L1.2

From: Hau
Date: Tue Jan 25 2022 - 04:52:54 EST

Next message: Bartosz Golaszewski: "Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/9] net: ethernet: mtk-star-emac: store bit_clk_div in compat structure"
Previous message: Jonathan Cameron: "Re: [PATCH 5/5] spi: make remove callback a void function"
In reply to: Heiner Kallweit: "Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] r8169: enable RTL8125 ASPM L1.2"
Next in thread: Heiner Kallweit: "Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] r8169: enable RTL8125 ASPM L1.2"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> On 25.01.2022 09:51, Hau wrote:
> >> On 24.01.2022 19:19, Chunhao Lin wrote:
> >>> This patch will enable RTL8125 ASPM L1.2 on the platforms that have
> >>> tested RTL8125 with ASPM L1.2 enabled.
> >>> Register mac ocp 0xc0b2 will help to identify if RTL8125 has been
> >>> tested on L1.2 enabled platform. If it is, this register will be set to 0xf.
> >>> If not, this register will be default value 0.
> >>>
> >> Who and what defines which value this register has? The BIOS? ACPI?
> >> Mainboard vendors test and can control the flagging? How about add-on
> >> cards and systems with other boot loaders, e.g. SBC's with RTL8125
> >> like Odroid H2+?
> >>
> > Soc vendor can opt-in to enable these bits to enable L1.2 through
> programming tool/bios/uboot.
> > Right now, there is no plan for set these bits for add-on card.
> >
> >> What is actually the critical component that makes L1.2 work or not
> >> with
> >> RTL8125 on a particular system? The chipset? Or electrical characteristics?
> >>
> > RTL8125 can support L1.2, but it disabled by r8169. So we create an
> option
> > to let soc vendor can opn-in to enabled L1.2 with r8169.
> >
>
> Thanks, Hau. Still the question is open what's the root cause of L1.2 not
> working with RTL8125 on *some* systems. I can't imagine that it just by
> chance works or not.
> If we know which component conflicts with RTL8125 then maybe a PCI quirk
> could be used.
>
Most of them are hardware compatibility issues. It may related to refclk/clkreq/ltr... setting.
Without the platform, it is hard to debug this kind of issue.

> >> The difference in power consumption between L1.1 and L1.2 is a few mW
> >> ([0]).
> >> So I wonder whether it's worth it to add this flagging mechanism.
> >> Or does it also impact reaching certain package power saving states?
> >>
> > Upstream port also can save power when rtl8125 L1.2 is enabled.
> >
> >> [0] https://pcisig.com/making-most-pcie%C2%AE-low-power-features
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Chunhao Lin <hau@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c | 99
> >>> ++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
> >>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
> >>> index 19e2621e0645..b1e013969d4c 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
> >>> @@ -2238,21 +2238,6 @@ static void rtl_wol_enable_rx(struct
> >> rtl8169_private *tp)
> >>> AcceptBroadcast | AcceptMulticast |
> >> AcceptMyPhys); }
> >>>
> >>> -static void rtl_prepare_power_down(struct rtl8169_private *tp) -{
> >>> - if (tp->dash_type != RTL_DASH_NONE)
> >>> - return;
> >>> -
> >>> - if (tp->mac_version == RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_32 ||
> >>> - tp->mac_version == RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_33)
> >>> - rtl_ephy_write(tp, 0x19, 0xff64);
> >>> -
> >>> - if (device_may_wakeup(tp_to_dev(tp))) {
> >>> - phy_speed_down(tp->phydev, false);
> >>> - rtl_wol_enable_rx(tp);
> >>> - }
> >>> -}
> >>> -
> >>> static void rtl_init_rxcfg(struct rtl8169_private *tp) {
> >>> switch (tp->mac_version) {
> >>> @@ -2650,6 +2635,34 @@ static void
> >>> rtl_pcie_state_l2l3_disable(struct
> >> rtl8169_private *tp)
> >>> RTL_W8(tp, Config3, RTL_R8(tp, Config3) & ~Rdy_to_L23); }
> >>>
> >>> +static void rtl_disable_exit_l1(struct rtl8169_private *tp) {
> >>
> >> Why is this function needed? The chip should be quiet anyway.
> >> IOW: What could be the impact of not having this function currently?
> >> If it fixes something then it should be a separate patch.
> >>
> This question would still be open.
>
> >>> + /* Bits control which events trigger ASPM L1 exit:
> >>> + * Bit 12: rxdv
> >>> + * Bit 11: ltr_msg
> >>> + * Bit 10: txdma_poll
> >>> + * Bit 9: xadm
> >>> + * Bit 8: pktavi
> >>> + * Bit 7: txpla
> >>> + */
> >>> + switch (tp->mac_version) {
> >>> + case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_34 ... RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_36:
> >>> + rtl_eri_clear_bits(tp, 0xd4, 0x1f00);
> >>> + break;
> >>> + case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_37 ... RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_38:
> >>> + rtl_eri_clear_bits(tp, 0xd4, 0x0c00);
> >>> + break;
> >>> + case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_40 ... RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_53:
> >>> + rtl_eri_clear_bits(tp, 0xd4, 0x1f80);
> >>> + break;
> >>> + case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_60 ... RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_63:
> >>> + r8168_mac_ocp_modify(tp, 0xc0ac, 0x1f80, 0);
> >>> + break;
> >>> + default:
> >>> + break;
> >>> + }
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> static void rtl_enable_exit_l1(struct rtl8169_private *tp) {
> >>> /* Bits control which events trigger ASPM L1 exit:
> >>> @@ -2692,6 +2705,33 @@ static void rtl_hw_aspm_clkreq_enable(struct
> >> rtl8169_private *tp, bool enable)
> >>> udelay(10);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +static void rtl_hw_aspm_l12_enable(struct rtl8169_private *tp, bool
> >>> +enable) {
> >>
> >> I assume this code works on RTL8125 only. Then this should be
> >> reflected in the function naming, like we do it for other version-specific
> functions.
> >>
> >>> + /* Don't enable L1.2 in the chip if OS can't control ASPM */
> >>> + if (enable && tp->aspm_manageable) {
> >>> + r8168_mac_ocp_modify(tp, 0xe094, 0xff00, 0);
> >>> + r8168_mac_ocp_modify(tp, 0xe092, 0x00ff, BIT(2));
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + r8168_mac_ocp_modify(tp, 0xe092, 0x00ff, 0);
> >>> + }
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static void rtl_prepare_power_down(struct rtl8169_private *tp) {
> >>> + if (tp->dash_type != RTL_DASH_NONE)
> >>> + return;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (tp->mac_version == RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_32 ||
> >>> + tp->mac_version == RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_33)
> >>> + rtl_ephy_write(tp, 0x19, 0xff64);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (device_may_wakeup(tp_to_dev(tp))) {
> >>> + rtl_disable_exit_l1(tp);
> >>> + phy_speed_down(tp->phydev, false);
> >>> + rtl_wol_enable_rx(tp);
> >>> + }
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> static void rtl_set_fifo_size(struct rtl8169_private *tp, u16 rx_stat,
> >>> u16 tx_stat, u16 rx_dyn, u16 tx_dyn) { @@ -
> >> 3675,6 +3715,7
> >>> @@ static void rtl_hw_start_8125b(struct rtl8169_private *tp)
> >>> rtl_ephy_init(tp, e_info_8125b);
> >>> rtl_hw_start_8125_common(tp);
> >>>
> >>> + rtl_hw_aspm_l12_enable(tp, true);
> >>> rtl_hw_aspm_clkreq_enable(tp, true); }
> >>>
> >>> @@ -5255,6 +5296,20 @@ static void rtl_init_mac_address(struct
> >> rtl8169_private *tp)
> >>> rtl_rar_set(tp, mac_addr);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +/* mac ocp 0xc0b2 will help to identify if RTL8125 has been tested
> >>> + * on L1.2 enabled platform. If it is, this register will be set to 0xf.
> >>> + * If not, this register will be default value 0.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static bool rtl_platform_l12_enabled(struct rtl8169_private *tp) {
> >>
> >> The function name is misleading. It could be read as checking whether
> >> the platform supports L1.2.
> >>
> >>> + switch (tp->mac_version) {
> >>> + case RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_60 ... RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_63:
> >>> + return (r8168_mac_ocp_read(tp, 0xc0b2) & 0xf) ? true : false;
> >>> + default:
> >>> + return false;
> >>> + }
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> static int rtl_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct
> >>> pci_device_id *ent) {
> >>> struct rtl8169_private *tp;
> >>> @@ -5333,11 +5388,15 @@ static int rtl_init_one(struct pci_dev
> >>> *pdev,
> >> const struct pci_device_id *ent)
> >>> * Chips from RTL8168h partially have issues with L1.2, but seem
> >>> * to work fine with L1 and L1.1.
> >>> */
> >>> - if (tp->mac_version >= RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_45)
> >>> - rc = pci_disable_link_state(pdev, PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1_2);
> >>> - else
> >>> - rc = pci_disable_link_state(pdev, PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1);
> >>> - tp->aspm_manageable = !rc;
> >>> + if (!rtl_platform_l12_enabled(tp)) {
> >>> + if (tp->mac_version >= RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_45)
> >>> + rc = pci_disable_link_state(pdev,
> >> PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1_2);
> >>> + else
> >>> + rc = pci_disable_link_state(pdev,
> >> PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1);
> >>> + tp->aspm_manageable = !rc;
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + tp->aspm_manageable = pcie_aspm_enabled(pdev);
> >>> + }
> >>>
> >>
> >> Better readable may be the following:
> >>
> >> if (rtl_platform_l12_enabled(tp)) {
> >> tp->aspm_manageable = pcie_aspm_enabled(pdev); } else if (tp-
> >>> mac_version >= RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_45) {
> >> rc = pci_disable_link_state(pdev, PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1_2);
> >> tp->aspm_manageable = !rc;
> >> } else {
> >> rc = pci_disable_link_state(pdev, PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1);
> >> tp->aspm_manageable = !rc;
> >> }
> >>
> >>> tp->dash_type = rtl_check_dash(tp);
> >>>
> >>
> >> ------Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Next message: Bartosz Golaszewski: "Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/9] net: ethernet: mtk-star-emac: store bit_clk_div in compat structure"
Previous message: Jonathan Cameron: "Re: [PATCH 5/5] spi: make remove callback a void function"
In reply to: Heiner Kallweit: "Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] r8169: enable RTL8125 ASPM L1.2"
Next in thread: Heiner Kallweit: "Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] r8169: enable RTL8125 ASPM L1.2"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]