From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PCIe: Add PCIe runtime D3cold support
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:51:33 +0200
Message-ID: <201204182151.33854.rjw@sisk.pl>
References: <4F8790F6.5080408@intel.com> <201204172220.45970.rjw@sisk.pl> <CAC=cRTN2QHWu1aD4AGyTB=wuHW-0oyLreZ2QiWSMvf_Ne_Nz0g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAC=cRTN2QHWu1aD4AGyTB=wuHW-0oyLreZ2QiWSMvf_Ne_Nz0g@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Cc: "Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@intel.com>, bhelgaas@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>, ACPI Devel Mailing List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012, huang ying wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 17, 2012, huang ying wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >> > Moreover, I really don't think it's a good idea to put PCI Express ports into
> >> > low-power states in general.  It might work on your platform, whatever it is,
> >> > but that doesn't mean it's going to work on every PCI Express system out
> >> > there.  I actually know of a number of such systems where it surely won't
> >> > work at all.
> >>
> >> The runtime PM support for PCIe port is not turned on by default, we need
> >>
> >> # echo auto > /sys/devices/pcixxxx:xx/<pci id>/power/control
> >>
> >> to turn on it.  And we will turn on it on system it works.  Is this sufficient?
> >
> > No, it is not.  In some cases it shouldn't be enabled at all for PCI Express
> > ports, as far as I can say, so to be on the safe side we should only enable it
> > on platforms where PCI Express ports are known to work correctly with runtime PM.
> 
> Sorry, I did not catch your idea exactly.  I think disable it by
> default and enable it by sysfs interface is what you suggested, isn't
> it?

No, it isn't.  User space shouldn't be able to enable functionality that's
going to break on a subset of systems.

> Or you suggest something like "white list"?

Yes, something like this.

Thanks,
Rafael