Hi,
> On Mar 11, 2020, at 18:28, Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:52:49PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>> Commit ad9001f2f411 ("PCI/PM: Add missing link delays required by the
>> PCIe spec") added a 1100ms delay on resume for bridges that don't
>> support Link Active Reporting.
>>
>> The commit also states that the delay can be skipped for S3, as the
>> firmware should already handled the case for us.
>
> Delay can be skipped if the firmware provides _DSM with function 8
> implemented according to PCI firmwre spec 3.2 sec 4.6.8.
As someone who doesn't have access to the PCI spec...
Questions below.
>
>> So let's skip the link training delay for S3, to save 1100ms resume
>> time.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
>> index 0454ca0e4e3f..3050375bad04 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
>> @@ -916,7 +916,8 @@ static int pci_pm_resume_noirq(struct device *dev)
>> pci_fixup_device(pci_fixup_resume_early, pci_dev);
>> pcie_pme_root_status_cleanup(pci_dev);
>>
>> - if (!skip_bus_pm && prev_state == PCI_D3cold)
>> + if (!skip_bus_pm && prev_state == PCI_D3cold
>> + && !pm_resume_via_firmware())
>
> So this would need to check for the _DSM result as well. We do evaluate
> it in pci_acpi_optimize_delay() (drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c) and that ends
> up lowering ->d3cold_delay so maybe check that here.
Do we need to wait for d3cold_delay here?
Or we can also skip that as long as pci_acpi_dsm_guid and FUNCTION_DELAY_DSM present?
Kai-Heng
>
>> pci_bridge_wait_for_secondary_bus(pci_dev);
>>
>> if (pci_has_legacy_pm_support(pci_dev))
>> --
>> 2.17.1
