Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2023 17:53:42 +0000
From:   "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Mehta, Sanju" <Sanju.Mehta@....com>,
        Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] PCI / ACPI: PM: Take _S0W of the target bridge into
 account in acpi_pci_bridge_d3(()

[Public]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 11:52
> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@....com>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>; linux-pci@...r.kernel.org; Rafael
> J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>; Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>; Bjorn
> Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>; Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>; Mehta, Sanju
> <Sanju.Mehta@....com>; Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>; Rafael J .
> Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] PCI / ACPI: PM: Take _S0W of the target bridge into
> account in acpi_pci_bridge_d3(()
> 
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:45:03PM +0000, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 16:41
> > > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@....com>
> > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>; linux-pci@...r.kernel.org;
> Rafael J.
> > > Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>; Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>; Bjorn
> Helgaas
> > > <bhelgaas@...gle.com>; Mika Westerberg
> > > <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>; Mehta, Sanju
> <Sanju.Mehta@....com>;
> > > Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>; Rafael J . Wysocki
> > > <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> > > kernel@...r.kernel.org; Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] PCI / ACPI: PM: Take _S0W of the target bridge
> into
> > > account in acpi_pci_bridge_d3(()
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:09:21PM +0000, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 16:02
> > > > > To: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>
> > > > > Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org; Limonciello, Mario
> > > > > <Mario.Limonciello@....com>; Rafael J. Wysocki
> <rafael@...nel.org>;
> > > Len
> > > > > Brown <lenb@...nel.org>; Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>;
> Mika
> > > > > Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>; Mehta, Sanju
> > > > > <Sanju.Mehta@....com>; Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>;
> Rafael J .
> > > > > Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-
> > > > > kernel@...r.kernel.org; Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] PCI / ACPI: PM: Take _S0W of the target
> bridge into
> > > > > account in acpi_pci_bridge_d3(()
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 09:51:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is generally questionable to allow a PCI bridge to go into D3 if
> > > > > > it has _S0W returning D2 or a shallower power state, so modify
> > > > > > acpi_pci_bridge_d3(() to always take the return value of _S0W for
> the
> > > > > > target bridge into accout.  That is, make it return 'false' if _S0W
> > > > > > returns D2 or a shallower power state for the target bridge
> regardless
> > > > > > of its ancestor PCIe Root Port properties.  Of course, this also causes
> > > > > > 'false' to be returned if the PCIe Root Port itself is the target and
> > > > > > its _S0W returns D2 or a shallower power state.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, still allow bridges without _S0W that are power-
> manageable via
> > > > > > ACPI to enter D3 to retain the current code behavior in that case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20221031223356.32570-1-
> > > > > mario.limonciello@....com/
> > > > > > Reported-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Applied to pci/pm for v6.3, thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > It'd be great if we could include a short description of the problems
> > > > > users might see.  I think the original problem was that on some AMD
> > > > > systems we put a USB4 router in D3 when it should remain in D0.  And
> I
> > > > > assume this means something doesn't wake up when it should?  Or
> maybe
> > > > > we miss a hotplug event?
> > > > >
> > > > > If somebody has an example or some text, I'll add it to the commit
> > > > > log.
> > > >
> > > > Here's a blurb for what happens on AMD side:
> > > >
> > > > When the platform is configured to not allow the PCIe port used for
> > > > tunneling to wakeup from D3 it will runtime suspend into D0 and the
> > > > USB4 controller which is a consumer will runtime suspend into D3.
> > > >
> > > > This inconsistency leads to failures to initialize PCIe tunnels for
> > > > USB4 devices.
> > >
> > > And what is J. Random User going to see?  DisplayPort not working
> > > ever?  It works to begin with, but not after a suspend?  Devices in a
> > > dock not being able to wake the system?
> > >
> > > I don't really know what "PCIe tunnels for USB4 devices not being
> > > initialized" means for me.  I want to know what a problem report from
> > > a non-expert user might look like.
> >
> > DP tunnels aren't affected, so monitors should still work.
> >
> > In terms of what doesn't work it depends on the architecture of the
> > the connected device.  Here's some concrete up-leveled examples:
> >
> > USB4 docks contain that a PCIe network adapter and that adapter won't
> > work when the dock is plugged in after the system boot.
> >
> > USB4 docks that contain a USB network adapter should work properly,
> > but downstream USB4 or TBT3 devices connected to that USB4 dock will
> > not work when the device or dock is plugged in after the system boots.
> >
> > TBT3 storage devices connected after the system has booted will not work.
> 
> Thanks, this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.  Since
> they all mention "connected after boot," I assume the issue with the
> current code is that a hotplug notification is being missed because a
> bridge is in D3.

Yeah.

> 
> If the devices are present and enumerated at boot, there's no issue
> with suspend/resume, right?
> 

I intentionally left that out because it's going to be conditional based on
a lot of other things.

> What do you think of the following possible text?  I don't want to be
> overly specific because I don't think it's practical to list every
> scenario.  We just need a hook to make people think "Hmm, I'm seeing a
> dock issue; maybe this is the fix."
> 
>   This fixes problems where a hotplug notification is missed because a
>   bridge is in D3.  That means hot-added devices such as USB4 docks
>   (and the devices they contain) and Thunderbolt 3 devices may not
>   work.

Perfect.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists