[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240305162537.GA8339@thinkpad>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 21:55:37 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Wilczy??ski <kw@...ux.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
quic_krichai@...cinc.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: Add D3 support for PCI bridges in DT based
platforms
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:40:52AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:20:00PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > 1) D3hot doesn't work per spec. This sounds like a hardware
> > defect in the device that should be a quirk based on
> > Vendor/Device ID, not something in DT. I don't actually know if
> > this is common, although there are several existing quirks that
> > mention issues with D3.
>
> My recollection is that putting Root Ports into D3hot on older x86
> systems would raise MCEs, which is why pci_bridge_d3_possible() only
> allows D3hot in cases which are known to work (e.g. Thunderbolt
> controllers, machines with a recent BIOS). It was a conservative
> policy chosen to avoid regressions.
>
So pci_bridge_d3_possible() is only checking for D3hot capability? If so, I'd
rename it to pci_bridge_d3hot_possible() and also 'bridge_d3' to 'bridge_d3hot'
to make it explicit.
Since the default value of 'd3cold_allowed' is true, I believe the code expects
all devices to support D0 and D3cold. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
- Mani
> I don't know if similar issues exist on non-ACPI systems. If they
> don't exist, platform_pci_bridge_d3() could just return true for
> all devicetree-based systems. Might be worth testing if any systems
> can be found which exhibit issues with such a policy. That would
> obviate the need to specify "supports-d3" in the devicetree.
> Quite the opposite, ports which are known not to work could be
> blacklisted. Of course if it turns out that's the majority then
> whitelisting via "supports-d3" is a better option.
>
>
> > 2) The platform doesn't support putting the bridge in D3cold and
> > back to D0. I don't understand this either because I assumed DT
> > would describe *hardware*, and "supports-d3" might imply the
> > presence of hardware power control, but doesn't tell us how to
> > operate it, and it must be up to a native driver to know how to
> > do it.
>
> I think we're putting devices into D3hot first before cutting power
> (i.e. putting them into D3cold), so knowing that D3hot is safe is
> basically a prerequisite for D3cold.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lukas
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
Powered by blists - more mailing lists