Adding Puranjay On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 15:05 -0800, David E. Box wrote: > On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 16:42 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 11:37:16AM -0800, David E. Box wrote: > > > On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 18:05 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 03:11:12PM +0800, Jian-Hong Pan wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > @@ -775,6 +773,14 @@ static int vmd_pm_enable_quirk(struct pci_dev > > > > > *pdev, > > > > > void *userdata) > > > > > pci_write_config_dword(pdev, pos + PCI_LTR_MAX_SNOOP_LAT, > > > > > ltr_reg); > > > > > pci_info(pdev, "VMD: Default LTR value set by driver\n"); > > > > > > > > You're not changing this part, and I don't understand exactly how LTR > > > > works, but it makes me a little bit queasy to read "set the LTR value > > > > to the maximum required to allow the deepest power management > > > > savings" and then we set the max snoop values to a fixed constant. > > > > > > > > I don't think the goal is to "allow the deepest power savings"; I > > > > think it's to enable L1.2 *when the device has enough buffering to > > > > absorb L1.2 entry/exit latencies*. > > > > > > > > The spec (PCIe r6.0, sec 7.8.2.2) says "Software should set this to > > > > the platform's maximum supported latency or less," so it seems like > > > > that value must be platform-dependent, not fixed. > > > > > > > > And I assume the "_DSM for Latency Tolerance Reporting" is part of the > > > > way to get those platform-dependent values, but Linux doesn't actually > > > > use that yet. > > > > > > This may indeed be the best way but we need to double check with our > > > BIOS folks. AFAIK BIOS writes the LTR values directly so there > > > hasn't been a need to use this _DSM. But under VMD the ports are > > > hidden from BIOS which is why we added it here. I've brought up the > > > question internally to find out how Windows handles the DSM and to > > > get a recommendation from our firmware leads. > > > > We want Linux to be able to program LTR itself, don't we? We > > shouldn't have to rely on firmware to do it. If Linux can't do > > it, hot-added devices aren't going to be able to use L1.2, right? > > Agreed. We just want to make sure we are not conflicting with what BIOS may be > doing. So the feedback is to run the _DSM and just overwrite any BIOS values. Looking up the _DSM I saw there was an attempt to upstream this 4 years ago [1]. I'm not sure why the effort stalled but we can pick up this work again. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pci/patch/20201015080311.7811-1-puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx/
