[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220825230121.GA2879965@bhelgaas>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 18:01:21 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
Cc: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>, Lukasz Majczak <lma@...ihalf.com>,
Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.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
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:55:01PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 12:17 AM Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Lukasz for the update.
> > I think confirms that there is no issue with the patch as such.
> > Bjorn, could you please define the next step for this patch?
>
> I think the L1SS cap went away _after_ L1SS registers are restored,
> since your patch already check the cap before doing any write:
> + aspm_l1ss = pci_find_ext_capability(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS);
> + if (!aspm_l1ss)
> + return;
>
> That means it's more likely to be caused by the following change:
> + pci_write_config_dword(dev, aspm_l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL2, *cap++);
> + pci_write_config_dword(dev, aspm_l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, *cap++);
>
> So is it possible to clear PCI_L1SS_CTL1 before setting PCI_L1SS_CTL2,
> like what aspm_calc_l1ss_info() does?
Sorry, I've totally lost track of where we are with this. I guess the
object is to save/restore L1SS state.
And there are two problems that aren't understood yet?
1) Lukasz's 01:00.0 wifi device didn't work immediately after
resume, but seemed to be hot-added later? [1]
2) The 00:14.0 Root Port L1SS capability was present before
suspend/resume but not after? [2,3]
I thought Lukasz's latest emails [4,5] indicated that problem 1) still
happened and presumably only happens with Vidya's patch, and 2) also
still happens, but happens even *without* Vidya's patch. Do I have
that right?
If adding the patch causes 1), obviously we would need to fix that.
It would certainly be good to understand 2) as well, but I guess if
that's a pre-existing problem, ...
Bjorn
[1] https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/fb36dfa2eff22911109dfb91ab0fc0e3#file-dmesg-L1762
[2] https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/fb36dfa2eff22911109dfb91ab0fc0e3#file-lspci-before-suspend-log-L136
[3] https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/fb36dfa2eff22911109dfb91ab0fc0e3#file-lspci-after-suspend-log-L136
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAFJ_xbr5NjoV1jC3P93N4UgooUuNdCRnrX7HuK=xLtPM5y7EjA@mail.gmail.com
[5] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAFJ_xboyQyEaDeQ+pZH_YqN52-ALGNqzmmzeyNt6X_Cz-c1w9Q@mail.gmail.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists