On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 11:16 AM Thorsten Leemhuis
<regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 09.04.22 15:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 9:53 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 04:46:14PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 1:34 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:57 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 07:38:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If one of the PCIe root ports on Elo i2 is put into D3cold and then
> >>>>>> back into D0, the downstream device becomes permanently inaccessible,
> >>>>>> so add a bridge D3 DMI quirk for that system.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This was exposed by commit 14858dcc3b35 ("PCI: Use
> >>>>>> pci_update_current_state() in pci_enable_device_flags()"), but before
> >>>>>> that commit the root port in question had never been put into D3cold
> >>>>>> for real due to a mismatch between its power state retrieved from the
> >>>>>> PCI_PM_CTRL register (which was accessible even though the platform
> >>>>>> firmware indicated that the port was in D3cold) and the state of an
> >>>>>> ACPI power resource involved in its power management.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the bug report you suspect a firmware issue. Any idea what that
> >>>>> might be? It looks like a Gemini Lake Root Port, so I wouldn't think
> >>>>> it would be a hardware issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> The _ON method of the ACPI power resource associated with the root
> >>>> port doesn't work correctly.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Weird how things come in clumps. Was just looking at Mario's patch,
> >>>>> which also has to do with bridges and D3.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do we need a Fixes line? E.g.,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: 14858dcc3b35 ("PCI: Use pci_update_current_state() in pci_enable_device_flags()")
> >>>>
> >>>> Strictly speaking, it is not a fix for the above commit.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is a workaround for a firmware issue uncovered by it which wasn't
> >>>> visible, because power management was not used correctly on the
> >>>> affected system because of another firmware problem addressed by
> >>>> 14858dcc3b35. It wouldn't have worked anyway had it been attempted
> >>>> AFAICS.
> >>>>
> >>>> I was thinking about CCing this change to -stable instead.
> >>
> >> Makes sense, thanks.
> >>
> >>>>>> BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215715
> >>>>>> Reported-by: Stefan Gottwald <gottwald@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> drivers/pci/pci.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >>>>>> ===================================================================
> >>>>>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >>>>>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >>>>>> @@ -2920,6 +2920,16 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id bridge
> >>>>>> DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd."),
> >>>>>> DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "X299 DESIGNARE EX-CF"),
> >>>>>> },
> >>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>> + * Downstream device is not accessible after putting a root port
> >>>>>> + * into D3cold and back into D0 on Elo i2.
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> + .ident = "Elo i2",
> >>>>>> + .matches = {
> >>>>>> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Elo Touch Solutions"),
> >>>>>> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Elo i2"),
> >>>>>> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION, "RevB"),
> >>>>>> + },
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is this bridge_d3_blacklist[] similar to the PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_D3 bit?
> >>>>
> >>>> Not really. The former applies to the entire platform and not to an
> >>>> individual device.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Could they be folded together? We have a lot of bits that seem
> >>>>> similar but maybe not exactly the same (dev->bridge_d3,
> >>>>> dev->no_d3cold, dev->d3cold_allowed, dev->runtime_d3cold,
> >>>>> PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_D3, pci_bridge_d3_force, etc.) Ugh.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, I agree that this needs to be cleaned up.
> >>>>
> >>>>> bridge_d3_blacklist[] itself was added by 85b0cae89d52 ("PCI:
> >>>>> Blacklist power management of Gigabyte X299 DESIGNARE EX PCIe ports"),
> >>>>> which honestly looks kind of random, i.e., it doesn't seem to be
> >>>>> working around a hardware or even a firmware defect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Apparently the X299 issue is that 00:1c.4 is connected to a
> >>>>> Thunderbolt controller, and the BIOS keeps the Thunderbolt controller
> >>>>> powered off unless something is attached to it? At least, 00:1c.4
> >>>>> leads to bus 05, and in the dmesg log attached to [1] shows no devices
> >>>>> on bus 05.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It also says the platform doesn't support PCIe native hotplug, which
> >>>>> matches what Mika said about it using ACPI hotplug. If a system is
> >>>>> using ACPI hotplug, it seems like maybe *that* should prevent us from
> >>>>> putting things in D3cold? How can we know whether ACPI hotplug
> >>>>> depends on a certain power state?
> >>>>
> >>>> We have this check in pci_bridge_d3_possible():
> >>>>
> >>>> if (bridge->is_hotplug_bridge && !pciehp_is_native(bridge))
> >>>> return false;
> >>>>
> >>>> but this only applies to the case when the particular bridge itself is
> >>>> a hotplug one using ACPI hotplug.
> >>>>
> >>>> If ACPI hotplug is used, it generally is unsafe to put PCIe ports into
> >>>> D3cold, because in that case it is unclear what the platform
> >>>> firmware's assumptions regarding control of the config space are.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I'm not sure how this is related to the patch at hand.
> >>>
> >>> So I'm not sure how you want to proceed here.
> >>>
> >>> The platform is quirky, so the quirk for it will need to be added this
> >>> way or another. The $subject patch adds it using the existing
> >>> mechanism, which is the least intrusive way.
> >>>
> >>> You seem to be thinking that the existing mechanism may not be
> >>> adequate, but I'm not sure for what reason and anyway I think that it
> >>> can be adjusted after adding the quirk.
> >>>
> >>> Please let me know what you think.
> >>
> >> I don't understand all that's going on here, but I applied it to
> >> pci/pm for v5.19, thanks!
> > Thank you!
>
> Sorry, but this made me wonder: why v5.19? It's a regression exposed in
> v5.15, so it afaics would be good to get this in this cycle -- and also
> backported to v5.15.y, but it seem a tag to take care of that is
> missing. :-/
Well, the patch is out there for everyone needing it. The question is
how urgent it is to get it into the mainline and -stable, which boils
down to the question how many systems out there can be affected by it.
Since it is a firmware defect exposed, hopefully not too many.
