Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] PCI: brcmstb: add shutdown call to driver
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, james.quinlan@broadcom.com,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@kernel.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20210603172313.GA2123252@bjorn-Precision-5520>
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dbd96bb2-4873-a37c-567d-ffd731beb927@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:30:37 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210603172313.GA2123252@bjorn-Precision-5520>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/3/21 10:23 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:03:47AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 5/25/21 2:18 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 01:51:39PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote:
>>>> The shutdown() call is similar to the remove() call except the former does
>>>> not need to invoke pci_{stop,remove}_root_bus(), and besides, errors occur
>>>> if it does.
>>>
>>> This doesn't explain why shutdown() is necessary.  "errors occur"
>>> might be a hint, except that AFAICT, many similar drivers do invoke
>>> pci_stop_root_bus() and pci_remove_root_bus() (several of them while
>>> holding pci_lock_rescan_remove()), without implementing .shutdown().
>>
>> We have to implement .shutdown() in order to meet a certain power budget
>> while the chip is being put into S5 (soft off) state and still support
>> Wake-on-WLAN, for our latest chips this translates into roughly 200mW of
>> power savings at the wall. We could probably add a word or two in a v2
>> that indicates this is done for power savings.
> 
> "Saving power" is a great reason to do this.  But we still need to
> connect this to the driver model and the system-level behavior
> somehow.
> 
> The pci_driver comment says @shutdown is to "stop idling DMA
> operations" and it hooks into reboot_notifier_list in kernel/sys.c.
> That's incorrect or at least incomplete because reboot_notifier_list
> isn't mentioned at all in kernel/sys.c, and I don't see the connection
> between @shutdown and reboot_notifier_list.
> 
> AFAICT, @shutdown is currently used in this path:
> 
>   kernel_restart_prepare or kernel_shutdown_prepare
>     device_shutdown
>       dev->bus->shutdown
>         pci_device_shutdown                     # pci_bus_type.shutdown
>           drv->shutdown
> 
> so we're going to either reboot or halt/power-off the entire system,
> and we're not going to use this device again until we're in a
> brand-new kernel and we re-enumerate the device and re-register the
> driver.
> 
> I'm not quite sure how either of those fits into the power-saving
> reason.  I guess going to S5 is probably via the kernel_power_off()
> path and that by itself doesn't turn off as much power to the PCIe
> controller as it could?  And this new .shutdown() method will get
> called in that path and will turn off more power, but will still leave
> enough for wake-on-LAN to work?  And when we *do* wake from S5,
> obviously that means a complete boot with a new kernel.

Correct, the S5 shutdown is via kernel_power_off() and will turn off all
that we can in the PCIe root complex and its PHY, drop the PCIe link to
the end-point which signals that the end-point can enter its own suspend
logic, too. And yes, when we do wake-up from S5 it means booting a
completely new kernel. S5 is typically implemented in our chips by
keeping just a little bit of logic active to service wake-up events
(infrared remotes, GPIOs, RTC, etc.).
-- 
Florian