On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:32 PM Ferry Toth <fntoth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi > > Op 23-09-2021 om 15:51 schreef Ferry Toth: > > Repost (with formatting removed, sorry for the noise) > > Op 23-09-2021 om 13:30 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki: > >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:31 PM Ferry Toth<fntoth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> Op 20-09-2021 om 21:17 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki: > >>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki<rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> Using struct pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI adds unnecessary > >>>> indirection to the interactions between the PCI core and ACPI PM, > >>>> which is also subject to retpolines. > >>>> > >>>> Moreover, it is not particularly clear from the current code that, > >>>> as far as PCI PM is concerned, "platform" really means just ACPI > >>>> except for the special casess when Intel MID PCI PM is used or when > >>>> ACPI support is disabled (through the kernel config or command line, > >>>> or because there are no usable ACPI tables on the system). > >>>> > >>>> To address the above, rework the PCI PM code to invoke ACPI PM > >>>> functions directly as needed and drop the acpi_pci_platform_pm > >>>> object that is not necessary any more. > >>>> > >>>> Accordingly, update some of the ACPI PM functions in question to do > >>>> extra checks in case the ACPI support is disabled (which previously > >>>> was taken care of by avoiding to set the pci_platform_ops pointer > >>>> in those cases). > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki<rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> v1 -> v2: > >>>> * Rebase on top of the new [1/7] and move dropping struct > >>>> pci_platform_pm_ops to a separate patch. > >>> I wanted to test this series on 5.15-rc2 but this patch 2/7 doesn't > >>> apply (after 1/7 applied). Should I apply this on another tree? > >> This is on top of > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/2793105.e9J7NaK4W3@kreacher/ > >> > >> which is not yet in any tree. > >> > >> Sorry for the confusion. > > No problem at all. If I can I will try to report back tonight. Else, > > will be delayed 2 due to a short break. > > With those 3 extra patches followed by 7 from this series it builds. But > on boot I get: > dwc3 dwc3.0.auto: this is not a DesignWare USB3 DRD Core > Then after this it reboots. Nothing in the logs. Nothing else on > console, I guess something goes wrong early. It appears so. Can you please try just the 3 extra patches this series is on top of? The problem is more likely to be located in one of them.
