[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hTsEzFKvRf-MHpUxyJdFDUqc2ZL63s6BkyJyFtEzxvhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 13:19:42 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: James Liu <james.liu@....com>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpelk@...ts.osp.hpe.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI: reboot: Increase the delay to avoid racing after
writing to ACPI RESET_REG on AMD Milan platforms.
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 5:44 AM James Liu <james.liu@....com> wrote:
>
> For AMD Milan platforms, the delay of 15ms is insufficient to avoid racing
> of reboot mechanisms. That said, the AMD Milan processors don't reboot
> in 15ms after invoking acpi_reset().
>
> The proposed 50ms delay can effectively work around this issue.
> This extended delay aligns better with ACPI v6.4 (i.e., sec. 4.8.4.6),
> which indicates that ideally OSPM should execute spin loops on the CPUs
> in the system following a write to this register.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Liu <james.liu@....com>
Why do you want to affect everyone (including guest kernels running in
virtual machines AFAICS) in order to address a problem specific to one
platform?
Wouldn't it be better to quirk that platform and document the quirk properly?
> ---
> drivers/acpi/reboot.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/reboot.c b/drivers/acpi/reboot.c
> index b79b7c99c237..002f7c7814a1 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/reboot.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/reboot.c
> @@ -78,5 +78,5 @@ void acpi_reboot(void)
> * The 15ms delay has been found to be long enough for the system
> * to reboot on the affected platforms.
> */
> - mdelay(15);
> + mdelay(50);
> }
> --
> 2.40.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists