On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:17:05PM +0000, Adrian Huang12 wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 15:45 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:56:25AM +0000, Adrian Huang12 wrote: > > > + if (status == AE_NOT_FOUND && > > > > Why limit it to not found? > > Just for the undefined _OSC object in order to follow ACPI5.0. > Looks like another approach should be implemented to address > this issue. Is this what you were thinking of: we should never > evaluate the _OSC object if it is the PCI root bridge? No, I meant we should never set no_aspm because _OSC fails for any reason on a non-PCIe root bridge. But thinking about it, I suspect that the whole way we handle _OSC in this case is wrong. If a PCI host bridge does implement _OSC then there's still a good chance that it'll refuse to grant us control over ASPM, and so we may still end up with failure cases. > > I suspect that we should never be basing our > > ASPM policy on the behaviour of PCI (rather than PCIe) bridges. > > Yes, agree since the ASPM functionality is supported only for PCIe. > Do you agree we should never evaluate the _OSC object if it is > the PCI root bridge? Just skipping _OSC entirely in that case would certainly fix the issue, but it doesn't sound like the best fix. I think we need to revisit some assumptions in this code. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
