[Public] > -----Original Message----- > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 14:10 > To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>; Limonciello, Mario > <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>; Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>; > open list:PCI SUBSYSTEM <linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux PM <linux- > pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mehta, Sanju <Sanju.Mehta@xxxxxxx>; Mika > Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] PCI / ACPI: Assume `HotPlugSupportInD3` only if > device can wake from D3 > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 7:52 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 07:31:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 6:15 PM Limonciello, Mario > > > <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:35 > > > > > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx> > > > > > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>; open list:PCI SUBSYSTEM > <linux- > > > > > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux PM <linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > Mehta, Sanju > > > > > <Sanju.Mehta@xxxxxxx>; Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>; > Mika > > > > > Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] PCI / ACPI: Assume `HotPlugSupportInD3` > only if > > > > > device can wake from D3 > > > > > > > > > > [+cc Mika, "HotPlugSupportInD3" scope question below] > > > > > > > > FYI - Mika had approved some earlier versions of this, so I expect > conceptual > > > > Alignment at least with the latest one. > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > Can we at least list some common scenarios? E.g., it affects > > > > > > > kernels after commit X, or it affects machines with CPUs newer > > > > > > > than Y, or it affects a certain kind of tunneling, etc? Distros > > > > > > > need this information so they can figure whether and how far to > > > > > > > backport things like this. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's going to affect any retail machine with the SOC we refer to in > > > > > > the kernel as "Yellow Carp". This is one of the first non-Intel > > > > > > USB4 hosts and will be using the USB4 SW CM in the kernel. > > > > > > > > > > > > Without this change, effectively PCIe tunneling will not work when > > > > > > any downstream PCIe device is hotplugged. In the right > > > > > > circumstances it might work if it's coldbooted (if the paths > > > > > > selected by the pre-boot firmware connection manager are > identical > > > > > > to that selected by SW CM). > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for this context! As far as I can tell from grubbing > > > > > through the git history, there are no PCI, USB4, or Thunderbolt > > > > > changes related to Yellow Carp, so I assume this has to do with Yellow > > > > > Carp firmware doing things differently than previous platforms. > > > > > > > > There have been a variety of Thunderbolt/USB4 changes as a result of > > > > Yellow Carp development and findings, but they have not been quirks; > > > > they have been done as generic changes that still make sense for all > > > > USB4 devices. > > > > > > > > Sanju (on CC) has submitted a majority of these, so if you want to see > > > > a sense of what these are you can look for his commits in > drivers/thunderbolt. > > > > > > > > > Previously, if a Root Port implemented the HotPlugSupportInD3 > > > > > property, we assumed that the Root Port and any downstream > bridges > > > > > could handle hot-plug events while in D3hot. > > > > > > > > > > I guess the difference here is that on Yellow Carp firmware, even if > > > > > there is a HotPlugSupportInD3 property on the Root Port, the Root > Port > > > > > cannot handle hot-plug events in D3hot UNLESS there is also an _S0W > > > > > method AND that _S0W says the Root Port can wakeup from D3hot or > > > > > D3cold, right? > > > > > > > > Yes, correct! > > > > > > > > > I have some heartburn about this that's only partly related to this > > > > > patch. The Microsoft doc clearly says "HotPlugSupportInD3" must be > > > > > implemented on Root Ports and its presence tells us that the *Root > > > > > Port* can handle hot-plug events while in D3. > > > > > > > > > > But acpi_pci_bridge_d3() looks up the Root Port at the top of the > > > > > hierarchy and assume that its "HotPlugSupportInD3" applies to any > > > > > switch ports that may be below that Root Port (added by > 26ad34d510a8 > > > > > ("PCI / ACPI: Whitelist D3 for more PCIe hotplug ports") [1]). > > > > > > Not really. > > > > > > "HotPlugSupportInD3" applies to the root port only and the platform > > > firmware may not know about any ports below it. > > > > > > However, the presence of "HotPlugSupportInD3" is used as an indicator > > > that the entire hierarchy is "D3cold-aware", so to speak. > > > Essentially, this boils down to the "Is the hardware modern enough?" > > > consideration and the answer is assumed to be "yes" if the property in > > > question is present for the root port. > > > > Seems weird to me since we're talking about a hot-plug Root Port and > > anything at all could be plugged into it. We're basically saying that > > we can assume a property of an arbitrary downstream device based on > > something we know about the upstream device. I'm still not > > comfortable with that. > > > > At a minimum we should add a comment about this assumption. The > > existing "... we know the hierarchy behind it supports D3 just fine" > > seems a little too strong. > > > > > But if "HotPlugSupportInD3" is not consistent with the other pieces of > > > information regarding the root port available from the firmware (_PRW > > > and _S0W in this particular case), the presence of it is questionable > > > in the first place, so IMO the approach here makes sense. > > > > This part seems reasonable to me, as long as we have good confidence > > that requiring "HotPlugSupportInD3" + _PRW + _S0W where we used to > > require only "HotPlugSupportInD3" is unlikely to break anything. > > > > I can't judge that, but I assume you know that we don't use the > > acpi_pci_bridge_d3() result unless _PRW and _S0W exist, so I'll take > > your word for it :) > > Actually, that is an extremely good point I didn't think about. > > Thinking about it now, one thing is missing: a check if _S0W is > present, because the lack of it means "any power state should be > fine". > > With this check in place we would only avoid taking > "HotPlugSupportInD3" into account if it were not consistent with the > other settings and if that didn't work, we would end up in the quirks > territory this way or another. In that case something like this instead? + if (!adev->wakeup.flags.valid) + return false; + + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_evaluate_integer(adev->handle, "_S0W", NULL, &ret))) + return ret >= ACPI_STATE_D3_HOT; + + return true;