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:   Thu, 12 Jan 2023 14:13:49 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Mehta Sanju <Sanju.Mehta@amd.com>,
        Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] PCI/ACPI: PCI/ACPI: Validate devices with power
 resources support D3
Message-ID: <20230112201349.GA1787315@bhelgaas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gwLU2rsUWga+aEyWtXb=CHx2wqbrXX1hc+M_Po64a11A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:56:05AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 9:55 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 05:59:36PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 5:34:19 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > ...
> >
> > > > I don't really think that Root Port support is required for a bridge below
> > > > a Root Port if that bridge itself is power-manageable via ACPI.  Moreover,
> > > > I don't think that the _S0W of a Root Port has any bearing on devices below
> > > > it that have their own _S0W.
> > > >
> > > > So what we really want appears to be to evaluate _S0W for the target bridge,
> > > > regardless of whether or not it is a Root Port, and return 'false' if that
> > > > produces D2 or a shallower power state.  Otherwise, we can do what we've
> > > > done so far.
> >
> > > +bool acpi_dev_no_wakeup_from_d3(struct acpi_device *adev)
> > > +{
> > > +     unsigned long long state;
> > > +     acpi_status status;
> > > +
> > > +     status = acpi_evaluate_integer(adev->handle, "_S0W", NULL, &state);
> > > +     return ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && state < ACPI_STATE_D3_HOT;
> >
> > This returns "false" (i.e., "yes, device can signal wakeup from D3")
> > if _S0W doesn't exist.  Is that right?
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> The reason why I did it that way was because the bridge cannot signal
> wakeup from D3 if both the following conditions take place:
> 
> 1. There is _S0W and it can be evaluated successfully.
> 2. _S0W produces D2 or a shallower power state.
> 
> In particular, if 1 is not the case, it is still not clear whether or
> not the bridge can signal wakeup from D3 and additional checks are
> needed.
> 
> > I think this might be less confusing as:
> >
> >   bool acpi_dev_can_wake_from_d3(struct acpi_device *adev)
> >   {
> >     status = acpi_evaluate_integer(adev->handle, "_S0W", NULL, &state);
> >     return ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && state >= ACPI_STATE_D3_HOT;
> >   }
> 
> So I don't think the above will work, because
> !acpi_dev_can_wake_from_d3(adev) is also true if _S0W is not present,
> for example, in which case acpi_pci_bridge_d3() should not return
> 'false' right away.

OK, that makes sense, thanks!

> However, the additional function can simply return the value produced
> by _S0W or ACPI_STATE_UNKNOWN on all errors and its caller can do the
> checks as needed which is done here:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/5659681.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher/
> 
> (posted as a proper patch, because I wanted patchwork to pick it up).
> 
> I've also picked up the idea of using rpadev for representing the ACPI
> companion of the Root Port in acpi_pci_bridge_d3().
> 
> Cheers!