Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: rockchip: Don't lengthen PERST# when power is already valid

["Enrique Hernández Bello" <ehbello@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 02:21:14 +0000, Shawn Lin wrote:

> Was it possible to add a DT property for configurable delay? I came
> across several EPs need quite a longer wait time, so add it in the
> vendor tree for dwc-based IP[1]. That could be applied here to slove
> your cases and others', and might avoid regression.
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/rockchip-linux/kernel/blob/develop-6.12/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c#L865

Thanks -- that is a better shape than mine, and I will do it.

I will mirror the vendor driver: rockchip,perst-inactive-ms for the pulse, and
rockchip,s2r-perst-inactive-ms for the resume path, since the two paths want
different values here as well.

One thing I would rather ask than guess: should the default stay at
PCIE_T_PVPERL_MS, with affected boards setting the property, or should the
default be the spec minimum, with the property there for endpoints that need
longer?

What makes me ask is where T_PVPERL is measured from. It runs from power
stable to PERST# inactive, so on a board whose slot rails are regulator-
always-on it is already satisfied seconds before the driver touches the
GPIO, and the 100 ms then only widens the pulse. The one pulse-width floor
the spec gives is T_PERST, 100 us.

On my board that difference decides whether the JMB585 answers config reads at
all: 0 of 5 boots with a 100 ms pulse, 5 of 5 with a short one, with the
power-settling time held constant across both.

Keeping the current default is the safer change and I am happy to do that. I
would just rather we did it knowingly, instead of carrying a number that was
only ever right for boards which power the slot at the moment they assert
PERST#.

Secondary question: do you want the vendor-prefixed names, or would the DT
binding maintainers prefer something generic, given the timing comes from the
CEM spec rather than from Rockchip?