Re: [PATCH] USB: pci-quirks: Skip usb_early_handoff for Renesas PCI USB

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 03:00:32PM +0530, AKASH KUMAR wrote:
> 
> On 5/21/2024 3:08 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 02:55:13PM +0530, AKASH KUMAR wrote:
> > > Hi Greg, On 5/21/2024 1:35 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 01:16:35PM +0530, Akash Kumar wrote:
> > > > > Skip usb_early_handoff for the Renesas PCI USB controller
> > > > > due to the firmware not being loaded beforehand, which
> > > > > impacts the bootup time. Signed-off-by: Akash
> > > > > Kumar<quic_akakum@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > What commit id does this fix? Should it go to stable kernels?
> > > > yes it can go to stable kernels, issue is seen on every target
> > > > with usb over pcie support.
> > > > > --- drivers/usb/host/pci-quirks.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed,
> > > > > 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/pci-quirks.c
> > > > > b/drivers/usb/host/pci-quirks.c index
> > > > > 0b949acfa258..a0770ecc0861 100644 ---
> > > > > a/drivers/usb/host/pci-quirks.c +++
> > > > > b/drivers/usb/host/pci-quirks.c @@ -1264,6 +1264,11 @@
> > > > > static void quirk_usb_early_handoff(struct pci_dev *pdev) }
> > > > > } + /* Skip handoff for Renesas PCI USB controller on QCOM
> > > > > SOC */ + if ((pdev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_RENESAS) && +
> > > > > (pcie_find_root_port(pdev)->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM))
> > > > Why are all Renesas PCI devices on a QCOM host to be marked this
> > > > way? That's a very big hammer for potentially lots of devices.
> > > > Have you tested them all?
> > > firmware loading is being done in HLOS, not UEFI, if firmware
> > > loading is done in UEFI, then calling early_handoff() API makes
> > > sense, else it is checking for controller ready without firmware
> > > loaded which is impacting boot up time by 5 sec roughly. We are
> > > seeing problem in all targets having usb over pcie support.
> > But the bootloader has nothing to do with the device type of the devices
> > here, right? Why not properly trigger this off of the needed firmware
> > location instead of here? What happens when you have a system using UEFI
> > that matches these two devices and the change causes them to break? In
> > other words, test the proper thing, and only for the specific devices
> > you need to have the change for, don't be overly broad like you are
> > doing here, as you might break other systems that you do not have in
> > front of you at the moment.
> 
> yeah currently we don't have any uefi based targets, will add target specific check.
> 

Sure we do.

And please fix your email client.

Regards,
Bjorn