On Friday, January 11, 2013 11:06:29 AM Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 03:40:45 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 03:03:53 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > Well, I don't see what functional problems that can bring. > >> >> > > >> >> > In theory people may want to have them as modules to avoid loading them on > >> >> > systems that don't use PCI hotplug, but honestly I think that the complexity > >> >> > this causes us to deal with is not worth it. > >> >> > > >> >> > Moreover, removing the modularity may actually allow us to solve some ordering > >> >> > issues once and for good. > >> >> > >> >> No, the world is not really ideal yet. > >> >> > >> >> looks like laptops have problem with pci express cards. > >> >> > >> >> when pciehp is used, surprise insert/removal does not work because > >> >> PresDect does not change properly, so no interrupt is generated. > >> >> --- i suspects that is silicon problem. > >> >> > >> >> but when acpiphp is used, that surprise insert/removal is working. > >> >> > >> >> some laptop like thinkpad, just don't give osc to kernel.. > >> >> [ 0.505117] pci0000:00: Requesting ACPI _OSC control (0x1d) > >> >> [ 0.505413] pci0000:00: ACPI _OSC request failed (AE_SUPPORT), > >> >> returned control mask: 0x0d > >> >> [ 0.505517] ACPI _OSC control for PCIe not granted, disabling ASPM > >> >> > >> >> and other laptop give that to kernel, in recent kernel will not give > >> >> acpiphp to have that slot, because it want to hold that for pciehp. > >> >> poor user have to pass 'pci_aspm=off" to disable _OSC for all. > >> >> --- please check the mail that i forward to you yesterday. > >> > > >> > Yes, this is a bug, but I'm not sure how to fix it yet. > >> > >> add one command line to control it so do not claim that in osc_control? > > > > That's one option, although not very attractive so to speak. > > > >> >> Anyway, we do need to let the user to have choice to use acpiphp and pciehp. > >> >> and it should be first come and first serve policy. > >> > > >> > And that's why you think they should be modules? I disagree if so. > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> maybe we can have pci=nopciehp in command line just we pci=noaer... > >> > >> that should handle some corner cases. > > > > Yes. In any case the user should be able to say "I know better", but having > > to express that through the "right" ordering of modules is somewhat less than > > straightforward in my opinion. > > I think it's fine if a user *can* override the default ordering. > > I am completely opposed to *requiring* a user to supply a command line > option or change the order of module loading just to get hotplug to > work. There's no sane way to document that or communicate that > information to users. Well, I agree that neither of these things should be necessary, but that means the current code is based on incorrect assumptions. Perhaps our mistake is to believe that once we've done the _OSC handshake, we are supposed not to use ACPI for hotplug events handling? It looks like the general expectation of BIOS writers is that we will use ACPI regardless if available and we *may* use the native PCIe signaling in addition to it if the _OSC handshake is successful. So maybe there should be just one PCI hotplug driver that can use both ACPI and PCIe native events? [The same applies to PM, but the situation is a bit simpler in there.] Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
