| 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: <1bacfad9-b90f-1d74-bd06-8f01bd2f9396@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 19:32:34 +0530
From: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>
To: Lukasz Majczak <lma@...ihalf.com>
Cc: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
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 8/30/2022 4:45 PM, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> pt., 26 sie 2022 o 15:00 Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com> napisał(a):
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/23/2022 8:25 PM, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Vidya,
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I posted a new patch
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pci/patch/20220826125526.28859-1-vidyas@nvidia.com/
>> keeping L1.2 disabled while restoring the rest of the fields in
>> Control-1 register and restoring the L1.2 enable bits later. Could you
>> please try this new patch on your setup and update your observations?
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Vidya Sagar
>>
>>>
>>> Kai-Heng
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vidya Sagar
>>>>
>>>> On 8/8/2022 7:37 PM, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
>>>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> śr., 3 sie 2022 o 14:55 Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com> napisał(a):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Vidya,
>>>>>
>>>>> After your last email, I've re-tested my setup and (without your
>>>>> patch) the capability register also disappears - so it looks there is
>>>>> - in fact - some problem in my setup and your patch just brings it to
>>>>> the top as after resume tries to write to a register that is no longer
>>>>> present. I'm very sorry for the confusion here and I've not notice
>>>>> that at the very beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Lukasz
>>>>>
>
> Hi Vidya,
>
> For me (on Apollolake devices) the results remain the same, but as
> I've mentioned earlier - it looks very much related exactly to the
> Apollolake and is not directly related to your patch (e.g. I'm losing
> L1SS capabilities even without your patch).
> As a counter example, I don't observe any issues with your patach
> (v3) on Amberlake devices - lspci -vvv before suspend and after resume
> are exactly the same.
Thanks for the update Lukasz.
Anyway, i sent V3 fore review. Could you please review it and also test
it on your platform?
Thanks,
Vidya Sagar
>
> Best regards,
> Lukasz
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists