On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 11:25:02AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam via B4 Relay wrote: > From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Currently, there is no proper distinction between D3Hot and D3Cold while > handling the power management for PCI bridges. For instance, > pci_bridge_d3_allowed() API decides whether it is allowed to put the > bridge in D3, but it doesn't explicitly specify whether D3Hot or D3Cold > is allowed in a scenario. This often leads to confusion and may be prone > to errors. > > So let's split the D3Hot and D3Cold handling where possible. The current > pci_bridge_d3_allowed() API is now split into pci_bridge_d3hot_allowed() > and pci_bridge_d3cold_allowed() APIs and used in relevant places. s/So let's split/Split/ > Also, pci_bridge_d3_update() API is now renamed to > pci_bridge_d3cold_update() since it was only used to check the possibility > of D3Cold. > > Note that it is assumed that only D3Hot needs to be checked while > transitioning the bridge during runtime PM and D3Cold in other places. In > the ACPI case, wakeup is now only enabled if both D3Hot and D3Cold are > allowed for the bridge. > > Still, there are places where just 'd3' is used opaquely, but those are > hard to distinguish, hence left for future cleanups. The spec does use "D3Hot/D3Cold" (with Hot/Cold capitalized and subscripted), but most Linux doc and comments use "D3hot" and "D3cold", so I think we should stick with the Linux convention (it's not 100%, but it's a pretty big majority). > - if (pci_dev->bridge_d3_allowed) > + if (pci_dev->bridge_d3cold_allowed && pci_dev->bridge_d3hot_allowed) Much of this patch is renames that could be easily reviewed. But there are a few things like this that are not simple renames. Can you split out these non-rename things to their own patch(es) with their own explanations? Bjorn
