[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0bd9fdc1-99d4-1c59-7343-3708b331b2b5@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 22:28:44 +0530
From: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
CC: <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, <hch@....de>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
<mmaddireddy@...dia.com>, <kthota@...dia.com>,
<sagar.tv@...il.com>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Query related to shutting down NVMe during system suspend
Thanks for the super quick reply and I couldn't agree more.
On 2/1/2022 10:00 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 09:52:28PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
>> Hi Rafael & Christoph,
>> My query is regarding the comment and the code that follows after it at
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c?h=v5.17-rc2#n3243
>> What I understood from it is that, there is an underlying assumption
>> that the power to the devices is not removed during the suspend call.
>> In the case of device-tree based platforms like Tegra194, power is
>> indeed removed to the devices during suspend-resume process. Hence, the
>> NVMe devices need to be taken through the shutdown path irrespective of
>> whether the ASPM states are enabled or not.
>> I would like to hear from you the best method to follow to achieve this.
>
> Since platform makers can't converge on how to let a driver know what
> it's supposed to do, I suggest we default to the simple shutdown suspend
> all the time. We can add a module parameter to let a user request nvme
> power management if they really want it. No matter what we do here,
> someone is going to complain, but at least simple shutdown is safe...
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists