Re: [PATCH] PCI: qcom: Program correct T_POWER_ON value for L1.2 exit timing

[Krishna Chaitanya Chundru]

On 11/6/2025 11:51 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 10:30:44AM +0530, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
> > On 11/4/2025 11:26 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 05:42:45PM +0530, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
> > > > The T_POWER_ON indicates the time (in μs) that a Port requires the port
> > > > on the opposite side of Link to wait in L1.2.Exit after sampling CLKREQ#
> > > > asserted before actively driving the interface. This value is used by
> > > > the ASPM driver to compute the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD.
> > > >
> > > > Currently, the root port exposes a T_POWER_ON value of zero in the L1SS
> > > > capability registers, leading to incorrect LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD calculations.
> > > > This can result in improper L1.2 exit behavior and can trigger AER's.
> > > >
> > > > To address this, program the T_POWER_ON value to 80us (scale = 1,
> > > > value = 8) in the PCI_L1SS_CAP register during host initialization. This
> > > > ensures that ASPM can take the root port's T_POWER_ON value into account
> > > > while calculating the LTR_L1.2_THRESHOLD value.
> > > I think the question is whether the value depends on the circuit
> > > design of a particular platform (and should therefore come from DT),
> > > or whether it depends solely on the qcom device.
> > Yes it depends on design.
> > > PCIe r7.0, sec 5.5.4, says:
> > >
> > >     The T_POWER_ON and Common_Mode_Restore_Time fields must be
> > >     programmed to the appropriate values based on the components and AC
> > >     coupling capacitors used in the connection linking the two
> > >     components. The determination of these values is design
> > >     implementation specific.
> > >
> > > That suggests to me that maybe there should be devicetree properties
> > > related to these.  Obviously these would not be qcom-specific since
> > > this is standard PCIe stuff.
> > Yes Bjorn these are PCIe stuff only, I can go to Device tree route if we
> > have different values for each target, as of now we are using this same
> > value in all targets as recommended by our HW team. If there is at least one
> > more target or one more vendor who needs to program this we can take
> > devicetree property route.
> >
> > I am ok to go with devicetree way also if you insists. - Krishna Chaitanya.
> Since this is a PCI generic value, using devicetree property makes sense to me.
Raised devicetree change here [PATCH] schemas: pci: Document PCIe T_POWER_ON

<https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251106113951.844312-1-krishna.chundru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/>- 
Krishna Chaitanya.
> - Mani