On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 22:31 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:31:42PM -0500, Adam Belay wrote:
> > This patch makes some improvements to pci_save_state and
> > pci_restore_state. Instead of saving and restoring all standard
> > registers (even read-only ones), it only restores necessary registers.
> > Also, the command register is handled more carefully. Let me know if
> > I'm missing anything important.
> >
> >
> > --- a/drivers/pci/pm.c 2005-11-13 20:32:24.000000000 -0500
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/pm.c 2005-11-13 20:29:32.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -53,10 +53,13 @@
> > */
> > int pci_save_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > {
> > - int i;
> > - /* XXX: 100% dword access ok here? */
> > - for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
> > - pci_read_config_dword(dev, i * 4,&dev->saved_config_space[i]);
> > + struct pci_dev_config * conf = &dev->saved_config;
> > +
> > + pci_read_config_word(dev, PCI_COMMAND, &conf->command);
> > + pci_read_config_byte(dev, PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE, &conf->cacheline_size);
> > + pci_read_config_byte(dev, PCI_LATENCY_TIMER, &conf->latency_timer);
> > + pci_read_config_byte(dev, PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN, &conf->interrupt_line);
>
> Why are we saving and restoring smaller ammounts of config space now?
After looking at the spec, it seems that most of the registers we were
restoring were read-only and couldn't possibly need to be restored.
Also, the PCI PM spec suggests that only a subset of the registers
should be restored. Finally, things like BIST should probably never be
touched.
This patch is one of the main reasons I'm looking for comments. I
wanted to see if there are any other necessary registers. I'm also
thinking we might want to restore some capability structures (which we
don't do now).
Thanks,
Adam
