[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230705200617.GA72825@bhelgaas>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 15:06:17 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>,
Michael Bottini <michael.a.bottini@...ux.intel.com>,
"Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
intel-wired-lan@...osl.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] PCI/ASPM: Enable ASPM on external PCIe
devices
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 01:09:49PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 4:54 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 04:35:25PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 7:06 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 01:36:59PM -0500, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> > It's perfectly fine for the IP to support PCI features that are not
> > and can not be enabled in a system design. But I expect that
> > strapping or firmware would disable those features so they are not
> > advertised in config space.
> >
> > If BIOS leaves features disabled because they cannot work, but at the
> > same time leaves them advertised in config space, I'd say that's a
> > BIOS defect. In that case, we should have a DMI quirk or something to
> > work around the defect.
>
> That means most if not all BIOS are defected.
> BIOS vendors and ODM never bothered (and probably will not) to change
> the capabilities advertised by config space because "it already works
> under Windows".
This is what seems strange to me. Are you saying that Windows never
enables these power-saving features? Or that Windows includes quirks
for all these broken BIOSes? Neither idea seems very convincing.
> > > So the logic is to ignore the capability and trust the default set
> > > by BIOS.
> >
> > I think limiting ASPM support to whatever BIOS configured at boot-time
> > is problematic. I don't think we can assume that all platforms have
> > firmware that configures ASPM as aggressively as possible, and
> > obviously firmware won't configure hot-added devices at all (in
> > general; I know ACPI _HPX can do some of that).
>
> Totally agree. I was not suggesting to limiting the setting at all.
> A boot-time parameter to flip ASPM setting is very useful. If none has
> been set, default to BIOS setting.
A boot-time parameter for debugging and workarounds is fine. IMO,
needing a boot-time parameter in the course of normal operation is
not OK.
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists