[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190215202049.GT96272@google.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:20:49 -0600
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Oza Pawandeep <poza@...eaurora.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] PCI: Fix runtime PME generation from D3hot
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:38:20AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 03:26:19PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 08:07:44PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Heiner reported [1] that runtime PME generation of his network card does
> > > not work after commit 0e157e528604 ("PCI/PME: Implement runtime PM
> > > callbacks") that landed in v4.20. Reverting the commit helps but it has
> > > another drawback, which I originally tried to solve with the commit, that
> > > the PCIe hierarchy wakes up immediately after being put into D3cold.
> > >
> > > This series of two patches tries to fix both issues so that PME wakes up
> > > from D3hot and that the hierarchy does not wake up immediately from D3cold.
> > >
> > > The previous version of the series can be found here:
> > >
> > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1892241.html
> > >
> > > Changes from the previous version:
> > >
> > > * Add tags from Heiner and Rafael
> > > * Update changelog to mention relevent PCIe spec sections
> > > * Add comment to pcie_disable_interrupt() explaining why and what is
> > > masked
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg79051.html
> > >
> > > Mika Westerberg (2):
> > > Revert "PCI/PME: Implement runtime PM callbacks"
> > > PCI: pciehp: Disable Data Link Layer State Changed event on suspend
> >
> > I tentatively applied these to pci/pm for v5.1.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > I suspect these should be marked for stable (v4.20+)?
>
> Yes, I think it makes sense.
>
> > I don't think the bugzilla in the second patch is directly relevant to
> > that patch. I'd like to update the patch with a more relevant
> > bugzilla if you have or can open one?
>
> I created a new one and included the link in my reply to the other
> patch.
I marked both for stable and updated the bugzilla link. Thanks!
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists