[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201231040735.GA2075@wunner.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 05:07:35 +0100
From: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Kai Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Time to re-enable Runtime PM per default for PCI devcies?
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 11:56:04PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> @@ -3024,7 +3024,9 @@ void pci_pm_init(struct pci_dev *dev)
> u16 status;
> u16 pmc;
>
> - pm_runtime_forbid(&dev->dev);
> + if (pci_acpi_forbid_runtime_pm())
> + pm_runtime_forbid(&dev->dev);
> +
Generic PCI code usually does not call ACPI-specific functions directly,
but rather through a pci_platform_pm_ops callback.
FWIW, if platform_pci_power_manageable() returns true, it can probably
be assumed that allowing runtime PM by default is okay. So as a first
step, you may want to call that instead of adding a new callback.
Thanks,
Lukas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists