[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191106133137.GN2552@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 15:31:37 +0200
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>,
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PCI: Add missing link delays required by the PCIe
spec
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 02:01:05PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > I feel that the following is the right place to perform the delay but if
> > you think we can ignore the above, I will just do what you say and do it
> > in pci_pm_default_resume_early() (and pci_restore_standard_config() for
> > runtime path).
> >
> > [The below diff does not have check for pci_dev->skip_bus_pm because I
> > was planning to move it inside pci_bridge_wait_for_secondary_bus() itself.]
>
> What do you gain by moving it? IIUC we want them to be the same
> condition, and if one is in pci_pm_resume_noirq() and another is
> inside pci_bridge_wait_for_secondary_bus(), it's hard to see that
> they're connected. I'd rather have pci_pm_resume_noirq() check it
> once, save the result, and test that result before calling
> pci_pm_default_resume_early() and pci_bridge_wait_for_secondary_bus().
Fair enough :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists