On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:26:04AM -0500, Adam Belay wrote:
> 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.
Ok, but be aware that this _might_ cause problems for some cards/drivers
that were relying on the old way... As long as you don't mind me
assigning those bugs to you, I don't have a problem with this :)
thanks,
greg k-h
