[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190731221956.GB15795@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:19:56 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com>,
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
linux-nvme <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [Regression] Commit "nvme/pci: Use host managed power state for
suspend" has problems
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:25:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> A couple of remarks if you will.
>
> First, we don't know which case is the majority at this point. For
> now, there is one example of each, but it may very well turn out that
> the SK Hynix BC501 above needs to be quirked.
>
> Second, the reference here really is 5.2, so if there are any systems
> that are not better off with 5.3-rc than they were with 5.2, well, we
> have not made progress. However, if there are systems that are worse
> off with 5.3, that's bad. In the face of the latest findings the only
> way to avoid that is to be backwards compatible with 5.2 and that's
> where my patch is going. That cannot be achieved by quirking all
> cases that are reported as "bad", because there still may be
> unreported ones.
I have to agree. I think your proposal may allow PCI D3cold, in which
case we do need to reintroduce the HMB handling.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists