On Fri, 16 Jun 2023, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 01:52:29PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > Don't assume that the device is fully under the control of ASPM and use > > RMW capability accessors which do proper locking to avoid losing > > concurrent updates to the register values. > > > > If configuration fails in pcie_aspm_configure_common_clock(), the > > function attempts to restore the old PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_CCC settings. Store > > only the old PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_CCC bit for the relevant devices rather > > than the content of the whole LNKCTL registers. It aligns better with > > how pcie_lnkctl_clear_and_set() expects its parameter and makes the > > code more obvious to understand. > [...] > > @@ -224,17 +223,14 @@ static bool pcie_retrain_link(struct pcie_link_state *link) > > if (!pcie_wait_for_retrain(parent)) > > return false; > > > > - pcie_capability_read_word(parent, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, ®16); > > - reg16 |= PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RL; > > - pcie_capability_write_word(parent, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, reg16); > > + pcie_capability_set_word(parent, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_RL); > > if (parent->clear_retrain_link) { > > This and several other RMW operations in drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c > are touched by commit b1689799772a ("PCI/ASPM: Use distinct local > vars in pcie_retrain_link()") which got applied to pci/enumeration > this week: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pci/pci.git/commit/?h=enumeration&id=b1689799772a6f4180f918b0ff66e264a3db9796 > > As a result the $SUBJECT_PATCH no longer applies cleanly and needs > to be respun. Okay but I'm a bit lost which commit/head in pci repo I should now base this series because there's a conflict between pci/aspm and pci/enumeration which is not resolved in the repo because pci/enumeration hasn't advanced into pci/next yet. Any suggestion? -- i.