Linux-ACPI Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@gmail.com>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] PCI / ACPI: Use cached ACPI device state to get PCI device power state
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:37:10 +0300
Message-ID: <20190620133710.GB2640@lahna.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190620131649.GG143205@google.com>

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 08:16:49AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:27:30AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 04:28:01PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 07:18:56PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > Intel Ice Lake has an integrated Thunderbolt controller which
> > > > means that the PCIe topology is extended directly from the two
> > > > root ports (RP0 and RP1).
> > > 
> > > A PCIe topology is always extended directly from root ports,
> > > regardless of whether a Thunderbolt controller is integrated, so I
> > > guess I'm missing the point you're making.  It doesn't sound like
> > > this is anything specific to Thunderbolt?
> >
> > The point I'm trying to make here is to explain why this is problem
> > now and not with the previous discrete controllers. With the
> > previous there was only a single ACPI power resource for the root
> > port and the Thunderbolt host router was connected to that root
> > port. PCIe hierarchy was extended through downstream ports (not root
> > ports) of that controller (which includes PCIe switch).
> 
> Sounds like you're using "PCIe topology extension" to mean
> specifically something below a Thunderbolt controller, excluding a
> subtree below a root port.  I don't think the PCI core is aware of
> that distinction.

Right it is not.

> > Now the thing is part of the SoC so power management is different
> > and causes problems in Linux.
> 
> The SoC is a physical packaging issue that really doesn't enter into
> the specs directly.  I'm trying to get at the logical topology
> questions in terms of the PCIe and ACPI specs.
> 
> I assume we could dream up a non-Thunderbolt topology that would show
> the same problem?

Yes.

> > > > Power management is handled by ACPI power resources that are
> > > > shared between the root ports, Thunderbolt controller (NHI) and xHCI
> > > > controller.
> > > > 
> > > > The topology with the power resources (marked with []) looks like:
> > > > 
> > > >   Host bridge
> > > >     |
> > > >     +- RP0 ---\
> > > >     +- RP1 ---|--+--> [TBT]
> > > >     +- NHI --/   |
> > > >     |            |
> > > >     |            v
> > > >     +- xHCI --> [D3C]
> > > > 
> > > > Here TBT and D3C are the shared ACPI power resources. ACPI
> > > > _PR3() method returns either TBT or D3C or both.
> 
> I'm not very familiar with _PR3.  I guess this is under an ACPI object
> representing a PCI device, e.g., \_SB.PCI0.RP0._PR3?

Correct.

> > > > Say we runtime suspend first the root ports RP0 and RP1, then
> > > > NHI. Now since the TBT power resource is still on when the root
> > > > ports are runtime suspended their dev->current_state is set to
> > > > D3hot. When NHI is runtime suspended TBT is finally turned off
> > > > but state of the root ports remain to be D3hot.
> 
> So in this example we might have:
> 
>   _SB.PCI0.RP0._PR3: TBT
>   _SB.PCI0.RP1._PR3: TBT
>   _SB.PCI0.NHI._PR3: TBT

and also D3C.

> And when Linux figures out that everything depending on TBT is in
> D3hot, it evaluates TBT._OFF, which puts them all in D3cold?  And part
> of the problem is that they're now in D3cold (where config access
> doesn't work) but Linux still thinks they're in D3hot (where config
> access would work)?

Exactly.

> I feel like I'm missing something because I don't know how D3C is
> involved, since you didn't mention suspending xHCI.

That's another power resource so we will also have D3C turned off when
xHCI gets suspended but I did not want to complicate things too much in
the changelog.

> And I can't mentally match up the patch with the D3hot/D3cold state
> change (if indeed that's the problem).  If we were updating the path
> that evaluates _OFF so it changed the power state of all dependent
> devices, *that* would make a lot of sense to me because it sounds like
> that's where the physical change happens that makes things out of
> sync.

I did that in the first version [1] but Rafael pointed out that it is
racy one way or another [2].

[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg83583.html
[2] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg83600.html

  reply index

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-18 16:18 [PATCH v2 0/3] PCI / ACPI: Handle sibling devices sharing power resources Mika Westerberg
2019-06-18 16:18 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] PCI / ACPI: Use cached ACPI device state to get PCI device power state Mika Westerberg
2019-06-19 21:28   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-06-20  8:27     ` Mika Westerberg
2019-06-20 13:16       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-06-20 13:37         ` Mika Westerberg [this message]
2019-06-20 14:15           ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-06-21 10:32             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-21 13:09               ` Bjorn Helgaas
2019-06-22  8:51                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-24 10:57                   ` Mika Westerberg
2019-06-24 11:14               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-25  9:45                 ` Mika Westerberg
2019-06-25 10:00                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-25 10:08                     ` Mika Westerberg
2019-06-21 11:56   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-24 10:58     ` Mika Westerberg
2019-06-18 16:18 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] ACPI / PM: Introduce concept of a _PR0 dependent device Mika Westerberg
2019-06-19 13:20   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-19 13:34     ` Mika Westerberg
2019-06-18 16:18 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] PCI / ACPI: Add _PR0 dependent devices Mika Westerberg
2019-06-19 13:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] PCI / ACPI: Handle sibling devices sharing power resources Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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 \
    --in-reply-to=20190620133710.GB2640@lahna.fi.intel.com \
    --to=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lukas@wunner.de \
    --cc=mr.nuke.me@gmail.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    /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

Linux-ACPI Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/0 linux-acpi/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-acpi linux-acpi/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi \
		linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org linux-acpi@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-acpi


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-acpi


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox