docs(upstream): recreate litepcie ecp5phy contribution log entry (closes #20)

docs/upstream-contributions/2026-05-05-litepcie-ecp5phy-outreach-draft.md

@@ -17,7 +17,8 @@ are:
 - `docs/upstream-contributions/0001-rev-a-known-upstream-issues.md`
   (the rev-A survey, on `main`).
 - `docs/upstream-contributions/2026-05-05-litepcie-ecp5phy.md` (the
-  contribution log entry in scoping state, currently on PR #17).
+  contribution log entry in scoping state, recreated on PR #22 after
+  PR #17 was closed without merge — see issue #20).
 - popsolutions/MAST#13 (the cross-stream issue documenting the
   decision).
 
@@ -149,10 +150,10 @@ PopSolutions Cooperative
 - Verify the public link in section "Our public scoping notes" still
   resolves to the survey doc on `main` at the moment you send (the
   doc is on `main` as of 2026-05-05 via PR #3).
-- If you want a public artefact later, the contribution-log PR
-  (popsolutions/Stays#17) is where the response gets summarised,
-  respectfully and without quoting Florent's reply verbatim unless he
-  authorises it.
+- If you want a public artefact later, the contribution-log file
+  (recreated via popsolutions/Stays#22 after the original PR #17 was
+  lost) is where the response gets summarised, respectfully and
+  without quoting Florent's reply verbatim unless he authorises it.
 - If you adapt the subject line, keep three signals: ECP5/Lattice,
   scoping/exploratory, small-cooperative (so it stands apart from
   vendor outreach in his inbox).

docs/upstream-contributions/2026-05-05-litepcie-ecp5phy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
+<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0 -->
+
+# 2026-05-05 — LitePCIe ECP5 PHY contribution
+
+**Status:** Scoping (day-1 recon complete; **scope correction surfaced
+— blocked pending human + Agent R alignment**).
+
+## Upstream project
+
+`enjoy-digital/litepcie` — small-footprint configurable PCIe core
+powered by Migen / LiteX. License: BSD-2-Clause.
+
+## Bug / feature gap
+
+LitePCIe ships PHY modules for Cyclone V, Gowin GW5A, Lattice
+CertusPro-NX, Xilinx 7-Series, UltraScale, and UltraScale+. There is
+no `ecp5pciephy.py`. Zero open issues, zero closed issues, zero PRs in
+the upstream repo mention "lattice" or "ecp5". The upstream README
+explicitly lists "add Lattice support" under "Possible improvements",
+so the contribution is welcome in principle.
+
+## Project context
+
+- Surfaced by Agent 4's first ecosystem-health survey:
+  `docs/upstream-contributions/0001-rev-a-known-upstream-issues.md`
+  (popsolutions/Stays PR #3).
+- Cross-stream issue: popsolutions/MAST#13 — "[cross-stream] LitePCIe
+  has no ECP5 PHY — rev-A host-link path is unsupported upstream".
+- Decision (2026-05-05, hybrid path): Agent 4 pursues Option 1
+  (author the PHY upstream) in parallel; Agent 2 switches the rev-A
+  PCB host link to GbE via LiteEth and amends ADR-001 in
+  `docs/adr/0001-fpga-target.md`. Agent 4 is no longer blocking on the
+  rev-A schedule.
+
+## Local workaround
+
+Rev-A PCB switches host link to GbE via LiteEth (Agent 2's track).
+Once Agent 2's ADR-001 amendment lands, this contribution becomes a
+forward-looking upstream gift rather than a rev-A blocker — the
+cooperative still ships it because authoring the missing PHY is a
+mission-level deliverable per
+`project_mission_and_open_fpga_commitment.md`, not a tactical
+necessity.
+
+## Day-1 recon (2026-05-05)
+
+Performed the following before writing any code:
+
+1. **Forked the upstream repo:**
+   `https://github.com/marcos-mendez/litepcie` (no clone yet — recon
+   via `gh api` reads).
+2. **Read upstream README, full `phy/lfcpnxpciephy.py`** (309 lines),
+   **and `phy/common.py`** (177 lines) to learn the PHY interface
+   contract every module must implement.
+3. **Searched upstream issues + PRs** for any prior ECP5 work — none
+   exists.
+4. **Searched GitHub broadly** for prior open-source ECP5 PCIe
+   implementations — no clearly mature project found (LimeSDR
+   variants use ECP5+PCIe via Lattice's proprietary Diamond IP;
+   no open soft-stack precedent).
+
+## Critical scope correction (the part that needs human attention)
+
+When MAST#13 was filed, the cost estimate ("1-2 sprint-equivalents")
+assumed `ecp5pciephy.py` would follow the same wrapping pattern as
+`lfcpnxpciephy.py`. Day-1 recon shows that assumption is wrong.
+
+### What the CertusPro-NX PHY actually does
+
+`lfcpnxpciephy.py` is a Python wrapper that:
+
+1. Downloads a **vendor-generated Verilog IP blob** as a zip from a
+   GitHub user-attachment URL (`do_finalize` calls `wget` + `unzip`
+   at build time).
+2. Instantiates two Verilog modules from that blob (`lfcpnxpciephy`
+   and `LMMI_app`) with hundreds of port mappings.
+3. Wires the Lattice Memory Mapped Interface (LMMI) for runtime
+   configuration.
+
+The actual PCIe controller (LTSSM, TLP layer, Data Link Layer, MAC) is
+**inside the proprietary Verilog blob**. The Python file is a
+thin wrapper, hence its tractable size.
+
+### Why ECP5 is fundamentally different
+
+The ECP5 family has hard SerDes blocks (Dual Channel Units, "DCU")
+capable of 5 Gbps PCIe Gen2 line rate, but it does **not** have an
+integrated PCIe controller block. The DCU exposes the PCIe physical
+layer (8b/10b coding, scrambling, framing) only — the PIPE-to-TLP
+stack (LTSSM negotiation, link training, DLLP, TLP framing,
+flow-control credits) must be soft-implemented in fabric.
+
+ADR-001's phrase "Gen2 hard IP" was technically imprecise: ECP5 has a
+hard PCS, not a full hard PCIe IP. Lattice's closed-source Diamond
+toolchain ships a soft PCIe controller IP (in encrypted Verilog) that
+sits on top of the DCU; that is what closed-source ECP5+PCIe designs
+use. There is no open-source equivalent in production use today.
+
+### Three sub-options (none costed at 1-2 sprints)
+
+**Sub-option 1a — Wrap Lattice Diamond's closed PCIe IP**
+
+Mirror the CertusPro-NX pattern: download a Lattice-generated soft IP
+blob and wrap it in `ecp5pciephy.py`. Closed-source IP, requires
+Diamond licence to regenerate, contradicts ADR-001's open-toolchain
+commitment. **Rejected on mission grounds.**
+
+**Sub-option 1b — Write a soft PCIe stack atop the ECP5 DCU**
+
+Implement LTSSM, DLL, TLP, and the PHY adapter in Migen / LiteX, atop
+the ECP5 DCU primitives. Realistic scope: months to years for a
+production-grade implementation; PCIe specification is hundreds of
+pages and the LTSSM alone has dozens of states with non-trivial timing
+requirements. This is not 1-2 sprints; it is a major project on its
+own.
+
+**Sub-option 1c — Port an existing open-source soft PCIe stack**
+
+Find a permissively licensed open soft PCIe stack and adapt it to
+target the ECP5 DCU. Candidate projects exist in academic / research
+contexts (e.g., NoC-PCIe variants, Pulpino-PCIe sketches), but none
+are known production-mature. Realistic scope: weeks of evaluation +
+months of integration, depending on candidate quality.
+
+### What the cost estimate should have said
+
+The honest estimate for delivering a working ECP5 PCIe Gen2 PHY
+upstream — under any of 1b or 1c — is **multi-quarter, not multi-sprint**.
+
+This is exactly the kind of finding that should surface during day-1
+recon, not month-2 implementation.
+
+## Recommendation (Agent 4)
+
+Pause coding work and **bring the scope correction back to the human +
+Agent R** before committing further effort. Three actionable paths:
+
+1. **Confirm the long-horizon path (1b or 1c) is still on-mission.**
+   The cooperative's commitment to upstream contributions is real and
+   load-bearing for differentiation, so a multi-quarter Agent 4 lane
+   is defensible. But it should be an explicit choice, not the result
+   of an under-informed estimate.
+2. **Open dialogue with the LitePCIe maintainers first.** Before
+   sinking effort, file an upstream issue / discussion against
+   `enjoy-digital/litepcie` summarising the gap and asking for
+   guidance on the preferred architecture (sub-option 1c candidate,
+   datapath width, integration strategy). This is the cheapest signal.
+   The maintainers' email is in their README
+   (`florent [AT] enjoy-digital.fr`); they also list paid-sponsorship
+   labels on related issues, so a Lattice-support sponsorship dialogue
+   is also possible if the cooperative chooses to fund the work.
+3. **Defer the ECP5 PHY work to post-rev-A.** Now that GbE is the rev-A
+   host link, the ECP5 PHY contribution is no longer time-sensitive.
+   Parking it until rev-B planning (where CertusPro-NX is the silicon
+   target and the PHY landscape is different) is a defensible
+   conservative choice.
+
+Agent 4 default if no further direction lands: option 2 — open the
+upstream dialogue, document the response, and wait for explicit
+prioritisation before any implementation.
+
+## Upstream link
+
+Not filed yet. Will be added once the path-forward decision lands.
+
+## Resolution status
+
+- **2026-05-05 (today):** Scoping complete. Scope correction
+  documented. Awaiting human + Agent R direction on whether to
+  continue (and on which sub-option), open upstream dialogue first,
+  or defer.
+
+Authored by Agent 4 (Open FPGA Upstream Contributions).