diff mbox

is L1 really disabled in iwlwifi

Message ID 20130516225535.GA27962@google.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Delegated to: Bjorn Helgaas
Headers show

Commit Message

Bjorn Helgaas May 16, 2013, 10:55 p.m. UTC 
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:22:11PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 22:26 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, May 10, 2013 04:52:57 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > I propose the following patch.  Any comments?
> > 
> > In my opinion this is dangerous, because it opens us to bugs that right now
> > are prevented from happening due to the way the code works.
> 
> Right, I'm also not entirely comfortable with this. The current
> behaviour may be confusing, but we could reduce that by renaming the
> functions. I'm still not clear on whether anyone's actually seeing
> problems caused by the existing behaviour.

I couldn't imagine that silently ignoring the request to disable ASPM
would be the right thing, but I spent a long time experimenting with
Windows on qemu, and I think you're right.  Windows 7 also seems to
ignore the "PciASPMOptOut" directive when we don't have permission
to manage ASPM.  All the gory details are at
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57331

The current behavior is definitely confusing.  I hate to rename or change
pci_disable_link_state() because it's exported and we'd have to maintain
the old interface for a while anyway.  And I don't really want to return
failure to drivers, because I think that would encourage people to fiddle
with the Link Control register directly in the driver, which doesn't seem
like a good idea.

And you're also right that (as far as I know) there's not an actual
problem with the current behavior other than the confusion it causes.

So, how about something like the following patch, which just prints a
warning when we can't do what the driver requested?  I suppose this may
also be a nuisance, because users will be worried, but they can't actually
*do* anything about it.  Maybe it should be dev_info() instead.

commit f1956960fa0759c53b28e3a2810bd7e1b6e8925f
Author: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Date:   Wed May 15 17:02:37 2013 -0600

    PCI/ASPM: Warn when driver asks to disable ASPM, but we can't do it
    
    Some devices have hardware problems related to using ASPM.  Drivers for
    these devices use pci_disable_link_state() to prevent their device from
    entering L0s or L1.  But on platforms where the OS doesn't have permission
    to manage ASPM, pci_disable_link_state() doesn't actually disable ASPM.
    
    Windows has a similar mechanism ("PciASPMOptOut"), and when the OS doesn't
    have control of ASPM, it doesn't actually disable ASPM either.
    
    This patch just adds a warning in dmesg about the fact that
    pci_disable_link_state() is doing nothing.
    
    Reported-by: Emmanuel Grumbach <egrumbach@gmail.com>
    Reference: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CANUX_P3F5YhbZX3WGU-j1AGpbXb_T9Bis2ErhvKkFMtDvzatVQ@mail.gmail.com
    Reference: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57331
    Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Comments

Emmanuel Grumbach May 17, 2013, 5:49 a.m. UTC | #1 
>
> I couldn't imagine that silently ignoring the request to disable ASPM
> would be the right thing, but I spent a long time experimenting with
> Windows on qemu, and I think you're right.  Windows 7 also seems to
> ignore the "PciASPMOptOut" directive when we don't have permission
> to manage ASPM.  All the gory details are at
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57331
>
> The current behavior is definitely confusing.  I hate to rename or change
> pci_disable_link_state() because it's exported and we'd have to maintain
> the old interface for a while anyway.  And I don't really want to return
> failure to drivers, because I think that would encourage people to fiddle
> with the Link Control register directly in the driver, which doesn't seem
> like a good idea.
>
> And you're also right that (as far as I know) there's not an actual
> problem with the current behavior other than the confusion it causes.
>
> So, how about something like the following patch, which just prints a
> warning when we can't do what the driver requested?  I suppose this may
> also be a nuisance, because users will be worried, but they can't actually
> *do* anything about it.  Maybe it should be dev_info() instead.
>

Good for me - now I would be notified that something wrong happened.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
index d320df6..faa83b6 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
@@ -724,9 +724,6 @@  static void __pci_disable_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, int state, bool sem,
 	struct pci_dev *parent = pdev->bus->self;
 	struct pcie_link_state *link;
 
-	if (aspm_disabled && !force)
-		return;
-
 	if (!pci_is_pcie(pdev))
 		return;
 
@@ -736,6 +733,19 @@  static void __pci_disable_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, int state, bool sem,
 	if (!parent || !parent->link_state)
 		return;
 
+	/*
+	 * A driver requested that ASPM be disabled on this device, but
+	 * if we don't have permission to manage ASPM (e.g., on ACPI
+	 * systems we have to observe the FADT ACPI_FADT_NO_ASPM bit and
+	 * the _OSC method), we can't honor that request.  Windows has
+	 * a similar mechanism using "PciASPMOptOut", which is also
+	 * ignored in this situation.
+	 */
+	if (aspm_disabled && !force) {
+		dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "can't disable ASPM; OS doesn't have ASPM control\n");
+		return;
+	}
+
 	if (sem)
 		down_read(&pci_bus_sem);
 	mutex_lock(&aspm_lock);