FTR, the patch is on `linux-pci` with all the CCs except `linux-pm`. I changed the title a bit based on the discussions here, it is: [PATCH v2] PCI: don't call firmware hooks on suspend unless it's fw- controlled On Fri, 2021-05-21 at 02:28 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote: > Thank you very much. Well send then a v2 with the comment in a minute. > > On Thu, 2021-05-20 at 14:49 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:54:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 1:27 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:48 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:12:26PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > The problem is related to the fact that in s2idle the platform > > > > > > firmware does not finalize the suspend transition and, consequently, > > > > > > it doesn't initiate the resume transition. Therefore whatever power > > > > > > state the device was left in during suspend must be dealt with > > > > > > during > > > > > > the subsequent resume. Hence, if whatever is done by SXIO/SXFP/SXLF > > > > > > in the suspend path cannot be reversed in the resume path by the > > > > > > kernel (because there is no known method to do that), they should > > > > > > not > > > > > > be invoked. And that's exactly because the platform firmware will > > > > > > not > > > > > > finalize the suspend transition which is indicated by > > > > > > PM_SUSPEND_FLAG_FW_SUSPEND being unset. > > > > > > > > > > How can we connect "if (!pm_suspend_via_firmware())" in this patch > > > > > with the fact that firmware doesn't finalize suspend (and consequently > > > > > does not reverse things in resume)? > > > > > > > > > > I don't see any use of pm_suspend_via_firmware() or > > > > > PM_SUSPEND_FLAG_FW_SUSPEND that looks relevant. > > > > > > > > First of all, there is a kerneldoc comment next to > > > > pm_suspend_via_firmware() which is relevant. Especially the last > > > > paragraph of that comment applies directly to the case at hand IMV. > > > > I do read kerneldoc, but I *rely* on the code, and it's nice when I > > can match up the kerneldoc with what the code is doing :) > > > > Part of my confusion is that "passing control to platform firmware" > > isn't particularly useful in itself because it doesn't give a clue > > about what firmware is *doing*. Without knowing what it does, we > > can't reason about how kernel's actions interact with firmware's > > actions. > > > > > BTW, the problem at hand is not that s2idle in particular needs to be > > > treated in a special way (this appears to be the source of all > > > confusion here). The problem is that the kernel cannot undo the > > > SXIO/SXFP/SXLF magic without passing control to the platform firmware. > > > > I assume this is really a case of "the kernel doesn't know *what* to > > do, but platform firmware does," so in principle the kernel *could* > > undo the SXIO/SXFP/SXLF magic if it knew what to do. > > > > > And "passing control to the platform firmware" doesn't mean "executing > > > some AML" here, because control remains in the kernel when AML is > > > executed. "Passing control to the platform firmware" means letting > > > some native firmware code (like SMM code) run which happens at the end > > > of S2/S3/S4 suspend transitions and it does not happen during S1 > > > (standby) and s2idle suspend transitions. > > > > > > That's why using SXIO/SXFP/SXLF is only valid during S2/S3/S4 suspend > > > transitions and it is not valid during s2idle and S1 suspend > > > transitions (and yes, S1 is also affected, so s2idle is not special in > > > that respect at all). > > > > > > IMO the changelog of the patch needs to be rewritten, but the code > > > change made by it is reasonable. > > > > So IIUC the comment should say something like: > > > > SXIO/SXFP/SXLF turns off power to the Thunderbolt controller. We > > don't know how to turn it back on again, but firmware does, so we > > can only use SXIO/SXFP/SXLF if we're suspending via firmware. > > > > Actually, it sounds like the important thing is that we rely on the > > firmware *resume* path to turn on the power again. > > > > pm_resume_via_firmware() *sounds* like it would be appropriate, but > > the kerneldoc says that's for use after resume, and it tells us > > whether firmware has *already* handled the wakeup event. And > > PM_SUSPEND_FLAG_FW_RESUME isn't set until after we've run these > > suspend_late fixups, so it wouldn't work here. > > > > Bjorn > >
