| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <d3228b1f-8d12-bfab-4cba-6d93a6869f20@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 18:25:27 +0530
From: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>
To: Lukasz Majczak <lma@...ihalf.com>
Cc: Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
Ben Chuang <benchuanggli@...il.com>, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, refactormyself@...il.com, kw@...ux.com,
kenny@...ix.com, treding@...dia.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
abhsahu@...dia.com, sagupta@...dia.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kthota@...dia.com, mmaddireddy@...dia.com, sagar.tv@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] PCI/ASPM: Save/restore L1SS Capability for
suspend/resume
Thanks Lukasz for the logs.
I still that the L1SS capability in the root port (00:14.0) disappeared
after resume.
I still don't understand how this patch can make the capability register
itself disappear. Honestly, I still see this as a HW issue.
Bjorn, could you please throw some light on this?
Thanks,
Vidya Sagar
On 8/3/2022 5:34 PM, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> pt., 29 lip 2022 o 16:36 Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com> napisał(a):
>>
>> Hi Lukasz,
>> Thanks for sharing your observations.
>>
>> Could you please also share the output of 'sudo lspci -vvvv' before and
>> after suspend-resume cycle with the latest linux-next?
>> Do we still see the L1SS capabilities getting disappeared post resume?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vidya Sagar
>>
>> On 7/29/2022 3:09 PM, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>
>>>
>>> wt., 26 lip 2022 o 09:20 Lukasz Majczak <lma@...ihalf.com> napisał(a):
>>>>
>>>> wt., 26 lip 2022 o 00:51 Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com> napisał(a):
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 10:03 AM Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree with Bjorn's observations.
>>>>>> The fact that the L1SS capability registers themselves disappeared in
>>>>>> the root port post resume indicates that there seems to be something
>>>>>> wrong with the BIOS itself.
>>>>>> Could you please check from that perspective?
>>>>>
>>>>> ChromeOS Intel platforms use S0ix (suspend-to-idle) for suspend. This
>>>>> is a shallower sleep state that preserves more state than, for e.g. S3
>>>>> (suspend-to-RAM). When we use S0ix, then BIOS does not come in picture
>>>>> at all. i.e. after the kernel runs its suspend routines, it just puts
>>>>> the CPU into S0ix state. So I do not think there is a BIOS angle to
>>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Vidya Sagar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/22/2022 11:12 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 11:41:14AM +0200, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
>>>>>>>> pt., 22 lip 2022 o 09:31 Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com> napisał(a):
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 6:38 PM Ben Chuang <benchuanggli@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 2:00 PM Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Previously ASPM L1 Substates control registers (CTL1 and CTL2) weren't
>>>>>>>>>>> saved and restored during suspend/resume leading to L1 Substates
>>>>>>>>>>> configuration being lost post-resume.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Save the L1 Substates control registers so that the configuration is
>>>>>>>>>>> retained post-resume.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tested-by: Abhishek Sahu <abhsahu@...dia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Vidya,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I tested this patch on kernel v5.19-rc6.
>>>>>>>>>> The test device is GL9755 card reader controller on Intel i5-10210U RVP.
>>>>>>>>>> This patch can restore L1SS after suspend/resume.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The test results are as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After Boot:
>>>>>>>>>> #lspci -d 17a0:9755 -vvv | grep -A5 "L1 PM Substates"
>>>>>>>>>> Capabilities: [110 v1] L1 PM Substates
>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+
>>>>>>>>>> ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+
>>>>>>>>>> PortCommonModeRestoreTime=255us
>>>>>>>>>> PortTPowerOnTime=3100us
>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+
>>>>>>>>>> T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=3145728ns
>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=3100us
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After suspend/resume without this patch.
>>>>>>>>>> #lspci -d 17a0:9755 -vvv | grep -A5 "L1 PM Substates"
>>>>>>>>>> Capabilities: [110 v1] L1 PM Substates
>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+
>>>>>>>>>> ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+
>>>>>>>>>> PortCommonModeRestoreTime=255us
>>>>>>>>>> PortTPowerOnTime=3100us
>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2- PCI-PM_L1.1- ASPM_L1.2- ASPM_L1.1-
>>>>>>>>>> T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=0ns
>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=10us
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After suspend/resume with this patch.
>>>>>>>>>> #lspci -d 17a0:9755 -vvv | grep -A5 "L1 PM Substates"
>>>>>>>>>> Capabilities: [110 v1] L1 PM Substates
>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+
>>>>>>>>>> ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+
>>>>>>>>>> PortCommonModeRestoreTime=255us
>>>>>>>>>> PortTPowerOnTime=3100us
>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+
>>>>>>>>>> T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=3145728ns
>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=3100us
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tested-by: Ben Chuang <benchuanggli@...il.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forgot to add mine:
>>>>>>>>> Tested-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Ben Chuang
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>> Kenneth R. Crudup <kenny@...ix.com>, Could you please verify this patch
>>>>>>>>>>> on your laptop (Dell XPS 13) one last time?
>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, the regression observed on your laptop with an old version of the patch
>>>>>>>>>>> could be due to a buggy old version BIOS in the laptop.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Vidya Sagar
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pci.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pci.h | 4 ++++
>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index cfaf40a540a8..aca05880aaa3 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1667,6 +1667,7 @@ int pci_save_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>>>>>>> return i;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> pci_save_ltr_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_save_aspm_l1ss_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> pci_save_dpc_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> pci_save_aer_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> pci_save_ptm_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1773,6 +1774,7 @@ void pci_restore_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>>>>>>> * LTR itself (in the PCIe capability).
>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>> pci_restore_ltr_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_restore_aspm_l1ss_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> pci_restore_pcie_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> pci_restore_pasid_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3489,6 +3491,11 @@ void pci_allocate_cap_save_buffers(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>>>>>>> if (error)
>>>>>>>>>>> pci_err(dev, "unable to allocate suspend buffer for LTR\n");
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> + error = pci_add_ext_cap_save_buffer(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS,
>>>>>>>>>>> + 2 * sizeof(u32));
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (error)
>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_err(dev, "unable to allocate suspend buffer for ASPM-L1SS\n");
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> pci_allocate_vc_save_buffers(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>>>>>>>>> index e10cdec6c56e..92d8c92662a4 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -562,11 +562,15 @@ void pcie_aspm_init_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>>>>>>>>>> void pcie_aspm_exit_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>>>>>>>>>> void pcie_aspm_pm_state_change(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>>>>>>>>>> void pcie_aspm_powersave_config_link(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>>>>>>>>>> +void pci_save_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> +void pci_restore_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> #else
>>>>>>>>>>> static inline void pcie_aspm_init_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>> static inline void pcie_aspm_exit_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>> static inline void pcie_aspm_pm_state_change(struct pci_dev *pdev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>> static inline void pcie_aspm_powersave_config_link(struct pci_dev *pdev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline void pci_save_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline void pci_restore_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCIE_ECRC
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index a96b7424c9bc..2c29fdd20059 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -726,6 +726,50 @@ static void pcie_config_aspm_l1ss(struct pcie_link_state *link, u32 state)
>>>>>>>>>>> PCI_L1SS_CTL1_L1SS_MASK, val);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +void pci_save_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>> + int aspm_l1ss;
>>>>>>>>>>> + struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state;
>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 *cap;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pci_is_pcie(dev))
>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + aspm_l1ss = pci_find_ext_capability(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS);
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!aspm_l1ss)
>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + save_state = pci_find_saved_ext_cap(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS);
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!save_state)
>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + cap = (u32 *)&save_state->cap.data[0];
>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_read_config_dword(dev, aspm_l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL2, cap++);
>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_read_config_dword(dev, aspm_l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, cap++);
>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +void pci_restore_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>> + int aspm_l1ss;
>>>>>>>>>>> + struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state;
>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 *cap;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pci_is_pcie(dev))
>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + aspm_l1ss = pci_find_ext_capability(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS);
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!aspm_l1ss)
>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + save_state = pci_find_saved_ext_cap(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS);
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!save_state)
>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + cap = (u32 *)&save_state->cap.data[0];
>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_write_config_dword(dev, aspm_l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL2, *cap++);
>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_write_config_dword(dev, aspm_l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, *cap++);
>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> static void pcie_config_aspm_dev(struct pci_dev *pdev, u32 val)
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> pcie_capability_clear_and_set_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL,
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With this patch (and also mentioned
>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220509073639.2048236-1-kai.heng.feng@canonical.com/)
>>>>>>>> applied on 5.10 (chromeos-5.10) I am observing problems after
>>>>>>>> suspend/resume with my WiFi card - it looks like whole communication
>>>>>>>> via PCI fails. Attaching logs (dmesg, lspci -vvv before suspend/resume
>>>>>>>> and after) https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/fb36dfa2eff22911109dfb91ab0fc0e3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I played a little bit with this code and it looks like the
>>>>>>>> pci_write_config_dword() to the PCI_L1SS_CTL1 breaks it (don't know
>>>>>>>> why, not a PCI expert).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for testing this! I'm not quite sure what to make of the
>>>>>>> results since v5.10 is fairly old (Dec 2020) and I don't know what
>>>>>>> other changes are in chromeos-5.10.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lukasz: I assume you are running this on Atlas and are seeing this bug
>>>>> when uprev'ving it to 5.10 kernel. Can you please try it on a newer
>>>>> Intel platform that have the latest upstream kernel running already
>>>>> and see if this can be reproduced there too?
>>>>> Note that the wifi PCI device is different on newer Intel platforms,
>>>>> but platform design is similar enough that I suspect we should see
>>>>> similar bug on those too. The other option is to try the latest
>>>>> ustream kernel on Atlas. Perhaps if we just care about wifi (and
>>>>> ignore bringing up the graphics stack and GUI), it may come up
>>>>> sufficiently enough to try this patch?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rajat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Random observations, no analysis below. This from your dmesg
>>>>>>> certainly looks like PCI reads failing and returning ~0:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Timeout waiting for hardware access (CSR_GP_CNTRL 0xffffffff)
>>>>>>> iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: 00000000: ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff
>>>>>>> iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Device gone - attempting removal
>>>>>>> Hardware became unavailable upon resume. This could be a software issue prior to suspend or a hardware issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And then we re-enumerate 01:00.0 and it looks like it may have been
>>>>>>> reset (BAR is 0):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pci 0000:01:00.0: [8086:095a] type 00 class 0x028000
>>>>>>> pci 0000:01:00.0: reg 0x10: [mem 0x00000000-0x00001fff 64bit]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lspci diffs from before/after suspend:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 00:14.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation Celeron N3350/Pentium N4200/Atom E3900 Series PCI Express Port B #1 (rev fb) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])
>>>>>>> Bus: primary=00, secondary=01, subordinate=01, sec-latency=64
>>>>>>> - DevSta: CorrErr- NonFatalErr+ FatalErr- UnsupReq+ AuxPwr+ TransPend-
>>>>>>> + DevSta: CorrErr+ NonFatalErr- FatalErr- UnsupReq- AuxPwr+ TransPend-
>>>>>>> - LnkCtl: ASPM L1 Enabled; RCB 64 bytes, Disabled- CommClk+
>>>>>>> + LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes, Disabled- CommClk+
>>>>>>> - LnkSta2: Current De-emphasis Level: -6dB, EqualizationComplete- EqualizationPhase1-
>>>>>>> + LnkSta2: Current De-emphasis Level: -3.5dB, EqualizationComplete- EqualizationPhase1-
>>>>>>> - Capabilities: [150 v0] Null
>>>>>>> - Capabilities: [200 v1] L1 PM Substates
>>>>>>> - L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+
>>>>>>> - PortCommonModeRestoreTime=40us PortTPowerOnTime=10us
>>>>>>> - L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+
>>>>>>> - T_CommonMode=40us LTR1.2_Threshold=98304ns
>>>>>>> - L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=60us
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The DevSta differences might be BIOS bugs, probably not relevant.
>>>>>>> Interesting that ASPM is disabled, maybe didn't get enabled after
>>>>>>> re-enumerating 01:00.0? Strange that the L1 PM Substates capability
>>>>>>> disappeared.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 01:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation Wireless 7265 (rev 59)
>>>>>>> LnkCtl: ASPM L1 Enabled; RCB 64 bytes, Disabled- CommClk+
>>>>>>> - ExtSynch- ClockPM+ AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt-
>>>>>>> + ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt-
>>>>>>> Capabilities: [154 v1] L1 PM Substates
>>>>>>> L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+
>>>>>>> PortCommonModeRestoreTime=30us PortTPowerOnTime=60us
>>>>>>> - L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+
>>>>>>> - T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=98304ns
>>>>>>> + L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2- PCI-PM_L1.1- ASPM_L1.2- ASPM_L1.1-
>>>>>>> + T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=0ns
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dmesg claimed we reconfigured common clock config. Maybe ASPM didn't
>>>>>>> get reinitialized after re-enumeration? Looks like we didn't restore
>>>>>>> L1SubCtl1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bjorn
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you all for the response and input! As Rajat mentioned I'm using
>>>> chromebook - but not Atlas (Amberlake) - in this case it is Babymega
>>>> (Apollolake) - I will try to load most recent kernel and give it a
>>>> try once again.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Lukasz
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have applied this patch on top of v5.19-rc7 (chromeos) and I'm
>>> still getting same results:
>>> https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/4b716704c21a3758d6711b2030ea34b9
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Lukasz
>>>
> Hi Vidya,
>
> Sorry for the long delay, I have retested your patch on top of
> linux-next/master (next-20220802) - the results for my device remain
> the same.
> Here are the logs (lspci -vvv before suspend, lspci -vvv after resume and dmesg)
> https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/c7bfd811359f23278034056a8002b3ef
> Let me know if you need any more logs and/or tests.
>
> Best regards,
> Lukasz
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists