From: Ferry Toth <email@example.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <email@example.com>, Linux PCI <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Linux ACPI <email@example.com>, LKML <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <email@example.com>, Andy Shevchenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mika Westerberg <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] PCI: ACPI: PM: Do not use pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 23:17:11 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0howP_PudCf-43_HqgW48ydc29SeFVRC-wCm_RNKPBMtA@mail.gmail.com> Hi Op 24-09-2021 om 14:02 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:32 PM Ferry Toth <email@example.com> wrote: >> Hi >> >> Op 23-09-2021 om 15:51 schreef Ferry Toth: >>> Repost (with formatting removed, sorry for the noise) >>> Op 23-09-2021 om 13:30 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki: >>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:31 PM Ferry Toth<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Op 20-09-2021 om 21:17 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki: >>>>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki<email@example.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Using struct pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI adds unnecessary >>>>>> indirection to the interactions between the PCI core and ACPI PM, >>>>>> which is also subject to retpolines. >>>>>> >>>>>> Moreover, it is not particularly clear from the current code that, >>>>>> as far as PCI PM is concerned, "platform" really means just ACPI >>>>>> except for the special casess when Intel MID PCI PM is used or when >>>>>> ACPI support is disabled (through the kernel config or command line, >>>>>> or because there are no usable ACPI tables on the system). >>>>>> >>>>>> To address the above, rework the PCI PM code to invoke ACPI PM >>>>>> functions directly as needed and drop the acpi_pci_platform_pm >>>>>> object that is not necessary any more. >>>>>> >>>>>> Accordingly, update some of the ACPI PM functions in question to do >>>>>> extra checks in case the ACPI support is disabled (which previously >>>>>> was taken care of by avoiding to set the pci_platform_ops pointer >>>>>> in those cases). >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki<firstname.lastname@example.org> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> v1 -> v2: >>>>>> * Rebase on top of the new [1/7] and move dropping struct >>>>>> pci_platform_pm_ops to a separate patch. >>>>> I wanted to test this series on 5.15-rc2 but this patch 2/7 doesn't >>>>> apply (after 1/7 applied). Should I apply this on another tree? >>>> This is on top of >>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/2793105.e9J7NaK4W3@kreacher/ >>>> >>>> which is not yet in any tree. >>>> >>>> Sorry for the confusion. >>> No problem at all. If I can I will try to report back tonight. Else, >>> will be delayed 2 due to a short break. >> With those 3 extra patches followed by 7 from this series it builds. But >> on boot I get: >> dwc3 dwc3.0.auto: this is not a DesignWare USB3 DRD Core >> Then after this it reboots. Nothing in the logs. Nothing else on >> console, I guess something goes wrong early. > It appears so. > > Can you please try just the 3 extra patches this series is on top of? > The problem is more likely to be located in one of them. Boots fine with just the 3 so up to and including "ACPI: glue: Look for ACPI bus type only if ACPI companion is not known". From the log I get: Intel MID platform detected, using MID PCI ops PCI: Using configuration type 1 for base access .. PCI: Using host bridge windows from ACPI; if necessary, use "pci=nocrs" and report a bug .. PCI: Probing PCI hardware PCI: root bus 00: using default resources PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00) PCI: pci_cache_line_size set to 64 bytes .. pnp: PnP ACPI init .. pnp: PnP ACPI: found 2 devices .. xhci-hcd xhci-hcd.1.auto: xHCI Host Controller xhci-hcd xhci-hcd.1.auto: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 1 xhci-hcd xhci-hcd.1.auto: hcc params 0x0220f06c hci version 0x100 quirks 0x0000000002010010 xhci-hcd xhci-hcd.1.auto: irq 14, io mem 0xf9100000 usb usb1: New USB device found, idVendor=1d6b, idProduct=0002, bcdDevice= 5.15 usb usb1: New USB device strings: Mfr=3, Product=2, SerialNumber=1 usb usb1: Product: xHCI Host Controller usb usb1: Manufacturer: Linux 5.15.0-rc2-edison-acpi-standard xhci-hcd usb usb1: SerialNumber: xhci-hcd.1.auto hub 1-0:1.0: USB hub found hub 1-0:1.0: 1 port detected I continued up to "PCI: ACPI: PM: Do not use pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI", still boots. In the logs I still see "Intel MID platform detected, using MID PCI ops". Unfortunately no more time today, and tomorrow short holiday starts. I will continue after returning next Sat.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-24 21:17 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-09-20 18:52 [PATCH v2 0/7] PCI: ACPI: Get rid of struct pci_platform_pm_ops and clean up code Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-20 19:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] PCI: PM: Do not use pci_platform_pm_ops for Intel MID PM Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-20 19:17 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] PCI: ACPI: PM: Do not use pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-22 21:30 ` Ferry Toth 2021-09-23 11:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [not found] ` <email@example.com> 2021-09-23 13:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-23 13:51 ` Ferry Toth 2021-09-23 20:32 ` Ferry Toth 2021-09-24 12:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-24 14:52 ` Ferry Toth 2021-09-24 21:17 ` Ferry Toth [this message] 2021-09-27 13:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-29 19:08 ` Nathan Chancellor 2021-09-29 19:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-29 19:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-20 19:17 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] PCI: PM: Drop struct pci_platform_pm_ops Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-20 19:17 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] PCI: PM: Rearrange pci_target_state() Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-20 19:17 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] PCI: PM: Make pci_choose_state() call pci_target_state() Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-20 19:17 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] PCI: PM: Do not call platform_pci_power_manageable() unnecessarily Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-20 19:17 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] PCI: PM: Simplify acpi_pci_power_manageable() Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-28 23:28 ` [PATCH v2 0/7] PCI: ACPI: Get rid of struct pci_platform_pm_ops and clean up code Bjorn Helgaas 2021-09-29 12:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-29 15:07 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2021-09-29 17:14 ` Ferry Toth 2021-09-29 18:05 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] PCI: PM: Simplify and unify some helper functions Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-29 18:09 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] PCI: PM: Rearrange pci_target_state() Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-29 18:11 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] PCI: PM: Make pci_choose_state() call pci_target_state() Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-09-29 18:15 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] PCI: PM: Do not call platform_pci_power_manageable() unnecessarily Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-10-03 20:14 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] PCI: PM: Simplify and unify some helper functions Ferry Toth 2021-10-05 11:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] PCI: ACPI: PM: Do not use pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.