On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 01:18:56PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 02:36:30PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> > I hope we can avoid adding suspend_late/resume_early callbacks in >> > struct pcie_port_service_driver, and I also hope we can avoid adding >> > device links. Those both sound pretty complicated. >> > >> > Can you do something like the patch below, which does something >> > similar for PME? >> >> AFAICT the core PCI PM code follows the same ordering than what PM core >> does so it may be possible that not all service drivers get >> resumed/suspended before other children (PCI buses). Basically this >> would be the same than just using core PM ops in DPC driver (in which >> case DPC specific things are still kept in DPC driver not in PCI core). > > I'm not sure I follow this. I assume the core PCI PM code guarantees > that a bridge is suspended after its children and resumed before them. > Are you saying that's not the case? if this is a PCIe port, then there are two categories of childres: port services and the PCI devices below it. There are no ordering constraints between the former and the latter, which appears to be a problem here. -- 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
