From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9AD0C47094 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:18:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9020661107 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 14:18:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230203AbhFGOUi (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:20:38 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f178.google.com ([209.85.167.178]:37382 "EHLO mail-oi1-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230200AbhFGOUi (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:20:38 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f178.google.com with SMTP id h9so18193489oih.4; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 07:18:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/W7QdJ0pNKu0G/Jpr2lieRQ3nvMKxgUynmwjevp+ExI=; b=B4K564OmTQ76uYv5bry7DEzBZCUHKhFWVHwfulEEsK/DZv8ZcJYVTEyJnaX6Co+xIs N7IcPngg5aoXaPQdCA5lA51Z68q2MAq6hRm63FQwxrwvv021V+1ELu9xBEj6m1ncTlDf aRuAfgSJ9u4Z+afA1Usq177eEVGGgkgm8T04LgjCJa14bM5YAzmVJnbC5ymiixWMVhpc BfeuPKsNDbzWkB0Q+qiOD20WhL11s5mCdVEP4eVAvQjw2hX56YuCY5VgUskYDifeh5ms PfKjOD511Ivo6x67kyFE+hn6Iaat4/LUcLGpKS8sN3Zg9a6u9sR6S6BXAxLr0qNC3IrP tsnw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533jP80N8T4TlkpqPGyoBWtna5c3t1iSP/rykbBr01cvJKj8r6zo h7P0R8vZSQuKxD7hBZMBAdtqGRbQoiqHFf8HZYY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQcPXgwSWDIINee1uuV2GdJwUb+l9kfRCPT+VK2CGWo9I64V3iQzsV6dUCNEoDQwIhOvFNMFszxvyBDLFmK90= X-Received: by 2002:aca:650d:: with SMTP id m13mr3373519oim.157.1623075526875; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 07:18:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210603205047.GA2135380@bjorn-Precision-5520> <20210604170938.GA2218177@bjorn-Precision-5520> In-Reply-To: From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 16:18:35 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/APCI: Move acpi_pci_osc_support() check to negotiation phase To: Joerg Roedel Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Bjorn Helgaas , Joerg Roedel , Bjorn Helgaas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Linux PCI , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 4:14 PM Joerg Roedel wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 02:56:24PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 7:09 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > If either "pcie_ports_disabled" or Linux doesn't support everything in > > > ACPI_PCIE_REQ_SUPPORT, we will never evaluate _OSC at all, so > > > the platform won't know that Linux has OSC_PCI_SEGMENT_GROUPS_SUPPORT, > > > OSC_PCI_HPX_TYPE_3_SUPPORT, OSC_PCI_EXT_CONFIG_SUPPORT, etc. > > > > Right. > > Thanks Bjorn and Rafael. So I think the important thing to do is to > issue at least one _OSC call even when Linux is not trying to take > control of anything. > > I look into a clean way to do this and get the kernel messages right. > One thing to change is probably only calculating 'control' if > !pcie_ports_disabled in negotiate_os_control(). Please also see https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/93d783c4-4468-023b-193e-3fc6eca35445@redhat.com/ for possible clashes etc.