On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:58:52AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:29:03AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 02:59:11PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 01:09:06PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > The same issue could happen on any system where we use acpiphp, so I > > > > don't think Thunderbolt is really relevant here, and it's easy to > > > > confuse things by mentioning it. > > > > > > This issue can happen regardless whether acpiphp is used or not. > > > > If the platform has yielded hotplug control to the OS via _OSC, > > I don't see how the platform could hot-add devices. So surely > > reserving a bus number for a bridge without anything below it > > can be constrained to the !pciehp_is_native(bridge) case? > > Nothing prevents ACPI Notify() happening while native PCIe hotplug is > used on non-hotplug ports (the ones not controlled by pciehp). And it > cannot be constrained to !pciehp_is_native(bridge) because it is the > root port that has the _OSC but below it can be non-hotplug ports where > ACPI Notify() is used to bring in additional devices. That sounds like a violation of the spec to me. ACPI 6.1 table 6-178 says if OS is granted control over PCIe hotplug, the firmware "must ensure that all hot plug events are routed to device interrupts", which wouldn't be the case for Notify() because the interrupt generated is an SCI, not an MSI or INTx interrupt for the hotplug port itself. Moreover, "after control is transferred to the OS, firmware must not update the state of hot plug slots, including the state of the indicators and power controller." Maybe I've misunderstood the spec all the time, my understanding was that if OS is granted control, the firmware won't do anything with hotplug ports below the host bridge, period. Thanks, Lukas -- 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
