Received: by 2002:ad5:4acb:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id n11csp226330imw; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 01:48:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1u+7CLJch27ZszjQvel2n3ZQRFhYuwmxiGGp06nXNXZtgRdi30KCa/y9qFg5+PDf06GCTwl X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:2c61:b0:72b:3a12:5121 with SMTP id ib1-20020a1709072c6100b0072b3a125121mr12448110ejc.52.1657874900893; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 01:48:20 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1657874900; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=B5qpjsOyVEDpjgxkjaoPODOVaD9OLwUJDvnid/rpLqtgdBHKZB/Lo//YIipQaEFA3k HlXNOXFrwGcvrRwufZoFDJgcOKPMH0SFTNXFRFbSA71VrI21bRqp3BDmW7aUOZe3R6WV TV2Z02bhNpxR15X53xPJqrDRo4RPNfJKC95BYG7hBGlVdlEUzjRjj+mvvmywM9qrnz5e CuH2jZiFwnCQzBZI9jqDfq1xGdZFp3sznwgKxI49U7lcglbAdstVXY+ZebK++iHNQN9n XUu0yFmgQ25yBpeh+/Pd3UC89sknI1OAp7NQTbADFdzu693Xg2R5tXP92pbwyA21rHcu /3pQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=gRk0wQArUGEci3I2VmvI9d2/7ZCUseVKClWFHTo1LhY=; b=X7BoGGqWmpWNH9qMPkHLaOdCgO0421sN2rk1XSJ4Faysh/FWICH/4tljFJ8nvJJEDT lLi1VvfdY08DngC/kKZj73gYl8/MYGnA1Lh7s95K7T1VA5nLTz5ClS3tyBS53+f6uyII dhU8TX+TxgEcTYLEQHO5l7mmwuiOWjcxRHPO3zPMvQIz/5WBCstZvjqorA6g1dKjWJzr 6fYhKk4ucBkRMryChAp0RTzS2MuQsSgQU1yZLirPBwUNchGY56HA8dZnPcNDhUqD4PHW iJyD2DS7V08sx5MKWkHTbSE1hzNSfCaGh63bCppQMhYte8sWbursMIiEmD9Ejw3MZ11K D8bg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h5-20020a056402280500b0043b41887ff6si1073817ede.359.2022.07.15.01.47.56; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 01:48:20 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232501AbiGOI3z (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 15 Jul 2022 04:29:55 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53698 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232494AbiGOI3v (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2022 04:29:51 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk (irc.codon.org.uk [IPv6:2a00:1098:84:22e::2]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C0625885E; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 01:29:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by cavan.codon.org.uk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CC63B40A71; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 09:29:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 09:29:45 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Manyi Li Cc: Kai-Heng Feng , Bjorn Helgaas , bhelgaas@google.com, refactormyself@gmail.com, kw@linux.com, rajatja@google.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vidya Sagar , rafael@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/ASPM: Should not report ASPM support to BIOS if FADT indicates ASPM is unsupported Message-ID: <20220715082945.GA10661@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20220713112612.6935-1-limanyi@uniontech.com> <20220713182852.GA841582@bhelgaas> <7305201c-eaf2-cb36-80fe-15174d3e33c7@uniontech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7305201c-eaf2-cb36-80fe-15174d3e33c7@uniontech.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS,SPF_HELO_NEUTRAL, SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 03:40:36PM +0800, Manyi Li wrote: > Please see the details of this issus: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216245 Hmm. The only case where changing aspm_support_enabled to false should matter is in pcie_aspm_init_link_state(), where it looks like we'll potentially rewrite some registers even if aspm_disabled is true. I think in theory we shouldn't actually modify anything as a result, and the lspcis from the bug don't show any ASPM values having changed, but I don't trust Realtek hardware in the general case so maybe it gets upset here? If the proposed patch is to just set aspm_support_enabled to false when we see the FADT bit set then I think this is fine.