[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120113232653.GA29533@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:26:53 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] PCI changes
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 03:14:21PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> So why is acpi_pci_root_add() special? Cna you explain that part to me?
> >
> > pcie_no_aspm() means "Do not permit ASPM to be enabled" - it doesn't
> > alter the existing state. pcie_clear_aspm() does that.
>
> I *know*.
>
> So look again.
>
> Why is acpi_pci_root_add() special?
>
> Because dammit, it does exactly that pcie_clear_aspm() for the
> ACPI_FADT_NO_ASPM case.
I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the status quo rather than
the patch - I see what you mean now. The intent here is to clear ASPM
state if the FADT bit has been set *and* we've got _OSC control, whereas
previously we'd clear ASPM state any time the FADT bit was set. There
are some machines which (a) set the FADT bit, (b) hand over _OSC
control, (c) program the device and (d) crash under certain
circumstances if you then try to use it. My assumption here is that the
FADT bit *does* mean "clear ASPM state", but only if we've been granted
_OSC control. That's the behaviour described in the changelog.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists