Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:53:42 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stefan Gottwald <gottwald@igel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: PM: Quirk bridge D3 on Elo i2
Message-ID: <20220408195342.GA339430@bhelgaas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0g9cg=nJ0yr5-a_phNnJLiU74KrfsULsAEsWBKeRr7HCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 04:46:14PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 1:34 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:57 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 07:38:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > If one of the PCIe root ports on Elo i2 is put into D3cold and then
> > > > back into D0, the downstream device becomes permanently inaccessible,
> > > > so add a bridge D3 DMI quirk for that system.
> > > >
> > > > This was exposed by commit 14858dcc3b35 ("PCI: Use
> > > > pci_update_current_state() in pci_enable_device_flags()"), but before
> > > > that commit the root port in question had never been put into D3cold
> > > > for real due to a mismatch between its power state retrieved from the
> > > > PCI_PM_CTRL register (which was accessible even though the platform
> > > > firmware indicated that the port was in D3cold) and the state of an
> > > > ACPI power resource involved in its power management.
> > >
> > > In the bug report you suspect a firmware issue.  Any idea what that
> > > might be?  It looks like a Gemini Lake Root Port, so I wouldn't think
> > > it would be a hardware issue.
> >
> > The _ON method of the ACPI power resource associated with the root
> > port doesn't work correctly.
> >
> > > Weird how things come in clumps.  Was just looking at Mario's patch,
> > > which also has to do with bridges and D3.
> > >
> > > Do we need a Fixes line?  E.g.,
> > >
> > >   Fixes: 14858dcc3b35 ("PCI: Use pci_update_current_state() in pci_enable_device_flags()")
> >
> > Strictly speaking, it is not a fix for the above commit.
> >
> > It is a workaround for a firmware issue uncovered by it which wasn't
> > visible, because power management was not used correctly on the
> > affected system because of another firmware problem addressed by
> > 14858dcc3b35.  It wouldn't have worked anyway had it been attempted
> > AFAICS.
> >
> > I was thinking about CCing this change to -stable instead.

Makes sense, thanks.

> > > > BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215715
> > > > Reported-by: Stefan Gottwald <gottwald@igel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/pci/pci.c |   10 ++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci.c
> > > > @@ -2920,6 +2920,16 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id bridge
> > > >                       DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd."),
> > > >                       DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "X299 DESIGNARE EX-CF"),
> > > >               },
> > > > +             /*
> > > > +              * Downstream device is not accessible after putting a root port
> > > > +              * into D3cold and back into D0 on Elo i2.
> > > > +              */
> > > > +             .ident = "Elo i2",
> > > > +             .matches = {
> > > > +                     DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Elo Touch Solutions"),
> > > > +                     DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Elo i2"),
> > > > +                     DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION, "RevB"),
> > > > +             },
> > >
> > > Is this bridge_d3_blacklist[] similar to the PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_D3 bit?
> >
> > Not really.  The former applies to the entire platform and not to an
> > individual device.
> >
> > > Could they be folded together?  We have a lot of bits that seem
> > > similar but maybe not exactly the same (dev->bridge_d3,
> > > dev->no_d3cold, dev->d3cold_allowed, dev->runtime_d3cold,
> > > PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_D3, pci_bridge_d3_force, etc.)  Ugh.
> >
> > Yes, I agree that this needs to be cleaned up.
> >
> > > bridge_d3_blacklist[] itself was added by 85b0cae89d52 ("PCI:
> > > Blacklist power management of Gigabyte X299 DESIGNARE EX PCIe ports"),
> > > which honestly looks kind of random, i.e., it doesn't seem to be
> > > working around a hardware or even a firmware defect.
> > >
> > > Apparently the X299 issue is that 00:1c.4 is connected to a
> > > Thunderbolt controller, and the BIOS keeps the Thunderbolt controller
> > > powered off unless something is attached to it?  At least, 00:1c.4
> > > leads to bus 05, and in the dmesg log attached to [1] shows no devices
> > > on bus 05.
> > >
> > > It also says the platform doesn't support PCIe native hotplug, which
> > > matches what Mika said about it using ACPI hotplug.  If a system is
> > > using ACPI hotplug, it seems like maybe *that* should prevent us from
> > > putting things in D3cold?  How can we know whether ACPI hotplug
> > > depends on a certain power state?
> >
> > We have this check in pci_bridge_d3_possible():
> >
> > if (bridge->is_hotplug_bridge && !pciehp_is_native(bridge))
> >             return false;
> >
> > but this only applies to the case when the particular bridge itself is
> > a hotplug one using ACPI hotplug.
> >
> > If ACPI hotplug is used, it generally is unsafe to put PCIe ports into
> > D3cold, because in that case it is unclear what the platform
> > firmware's assumptions regarding control of the config space are.
> >
> > However, I'm not sure how this is related to the patch at hand.
> 
> So I'm not sure how you want to proceed here.
> 
> The platform is quirky, so the quirk for it will need to be added this
> way or another.  The $subject patch adds it using the existing
> mechanism, which is the least intrusive way.
> 
> You seem to be thinking that the existing mechanism may not be
> adequate, but I'm not sure for what reason and anyway I think that it
> can be adjusted after adding the quirk.
> 
> Please let me know what you think.

I don't understand all that's going on here, but I applied it to
pci/pm for v5.19, thanks!

Bjorn