On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 4:00 AM Daniel Drake <drake@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:15 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I definitely was not understanding this correctly. There is no path
> > for a D3cold -> D3hot transition. Per spec (PCIe r5.0, sec 5.8), the
> > only legal exit from D3cold is to D0uninitialized.
>
> I'm also learning these details as we go.
>
> During runtime suspend, the ACPI _PS3 method (which does exist on this
> device) is called, then _PR3 resources are turned off, which (I think)
> means that the state should now be D3cold.
Correct.
> During runtime resume, the ACPI _PR0 resources are turned on, then
> ACPI _PS0 method is called (and does exist on this device), and my
> reading is that this should put the device in D0.
That should be something like D0uninitialized.
> But then when pci_update_current_state() is called, it reads pmcsr as
> 3 (D3hot). That's not what I would expect. I guess this means that
> this platform's _PR3/_PS3 do not actually allow us to put the device
> into D3cold,
That you can't really say.
Anyway, it is not guaranteed to do that. For example, the power
resource(s) listed by _PR3 for the device may be referenced by
something else too which prevents them from being turned off.
> and/or the _PR0/_PS0 transition does not actually transition the device to D0.
Yes.
Which may be the case if the power resource(s) in _PR3 have not been
turned off really.
[To debug this a bit more, you can enable dynamic debug in
drivers/acpi/device_pm.c.]
> While there is some ACPI strangeness here, the D3hot vs D3cold thing
> is perhaps not the most relevant point. If I hack the code to avoid
> D3cold altogether, just trying to do D0->D3hot->D0, it fails in the
> same way.
OK, but then you don't really flip the power resource(s), so that only
means that _PS0 does not restore D0, but in general it only is valid
to execute _PS0 after _PS3 (if both are present which is the case
here), so this is not conclusive again.
> > I know you tried a debug patch to call pci_dev_wait(), and it didn't
> > work, but I'm not sure exactly where it was called. I have these
> > patches on my pci/pm branch for v5.5:
> >
> > bae26849372b ("PCI/PM: Move pci_dev_wait() definition earlier")
> > 395f121e6199 ("PCI/PM: Wait for device to become ready after power-on")
> >
> > The latter adds the wait just before we call
> > pci_raw_set_power_state(). If the device is responding with CRS
> > status, that should be the point where we'd see it. If you have a
> > chance to try it, I'd be interested in the results.
>
> pci_dev_wait() doesn't have any effect no matter where you put it
> because we have yet to observe this device presenting a CRS-like
> condition. According to our earlier experiments, PCI_VENDOR_ID and
> PCI_COMMAND never return the ~0 value that would be needed for
> pci_dev_wait() to have any effect.
>
> I tried the branch anyway and it doesn't solve the issue.
>
> I haven't finished gathering all the logs you asked for, but I tried
> to summarize my current understanding at
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205587 - hopefully that
> helps.
OK, thanks for that!
