On 3/23/09, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:57:19 +1100 > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 15:23 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > The thing I didn't like was that it made the radeon driver use an > > > internal interface; I'd really prefer a proper return value from > > > pci_set_power_state, which in turn means auditing all its current > > > callers. But that doesn't seem worth it unless we see other drivers > > > needing something similar... > > > > > > And if we did go with something like your first patch, I'd still > > > rather see the timeout done in the driver, rather than having the > > > attempts & delay included in the function... > > > > So what ? The driver would call pci_set_power_state() until it stops > > failing ? > > Yeah, that's what I had in mind. > > > I'm not too fan of that, because it will change the access pattern > > to the chip: > > > > - write PM to 2 > > - short delay > > - read PM, see 0, return error > > - driver does big delay > > - write PM to 2 > > - short delay > > - read PM .... > > > > vs. the current sequence which is > > > > - write PM to 2 > > - long delay > > - read PM, be happy > > > > Which -seems- to be pretty much what happens in practice, though on > > that chip, I don't know for sure about others. > > > > I'm worried of the possible side effects of the first sequence that > > you propose since it would do 2 things potentially confusing to the > > HW: > > > > - read PM after a short delay... it -should- be harmless but you know > > HW as well as I do ... > > > > - write PM to 2 a second time after the long delay. Again, it > > -should- be harmless since the chip at this stage should already be > > in D2 state but god knows how the HW will react. > > > > I'm especially worried about the later in fact. Maybe we can minimize > > it by having pci_set_power_state() dbl check the content of the PM > > reg before writing to it... > > Honestly I'm not too happy about any of the approaches, but yeah I see > your point. The main thing is to prevent any config space access for > a specified time after the first D-state transition, which I think we > do correctly in the core. Beyond that, we just have to make sure the > core state is updated correctly; Rafael's first patch does that > correctly I think. > > Actually now that I think of it, maybe Alex can get us details on the > errata here. If we just need a longer wait between a D-state transition > and the next config space access for this chip (or set of chips), we > could add that as a proper quirk to the core... > > Alex, any thoughts about the bug & patch in > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12846 ? Looks like old > radeon chips need a workaround when transitioning from D0 -> D2... I don't see any errata for this, but it's hard to find stuff as chips get older. Alex _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
