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:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 08:26:01 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To:     Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Iain Lane <iain@orangesquash.org.uk>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] PCI: Don't put non-power manageable PCIe root
 ports into D3
Message-ID: <20230802052601.GM14638@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20230711221427.GA250962@bhelgaas>
 <b82a50eb-8182-84ca-5b24-dbe8870fa871@amd.com>
 <CAJZ5v0i6PviqW7u3i8hmvSCvR_VHqP-mWRy3Da8Ev_1vi9qBQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <a309e3fe-b1f9-e269-cb97-8af87c8d483b@amd.com>
 <CAJZ5v0jvxrDMR6YHFpYZ4yYpp82-3TtrH==SMRFtUMJsv7=i=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <37b005d5-68fb-f8dd-67e2-c953d677fca2@amd.com>
 <8298c01c-abec-914b-0542-459f38c635fe@amd.com>
 <CAJZ5v0i3g0JujMwikB8niRZ93hXJZqWtjrCjbaDmkMLUbMmwMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1b2cf1b-de5f-6c2e-c8dc-fdf60cd0882d@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d1b2cf1b-de5f-6c2e-c8dc-fdf60cd0882d@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Mario,

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 10:17:11PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > Consequently, platform_pci_bridge_d3() will return false and the only
> > thing that may allow the port to go into D0 is the dmi_get_bios_year()
> > check at the end of pci_bridge_d3_possible().
> > 
> > However, that was added, because there are Intel platforms on which
> > Root Ports need to be programmed into D3hot on suspend (which allows
> > the whole platform to reduce power significantly) and there are no
> > ACPI device power management objects associated with them (Mika should
> > know the gory details related to this).  It looks like under Windows
> > the additional power reduction would not be possible on those systems,
> > but that would be a problem, wouldn't it?
> > 
> 
> I've been thinking on this today, and I at least have a hypothesis about
> this behavior.  Perhaps Windows is actually utilizing enabled PEP
> constraints to enforce what state device should be put into over Modern
> Standby cycles in the absence of ACPI objects.
> 
> In the case of one of my problematic system the PEP constraints for the root
> port are:
> 
> Package (0x04)
> {
> 	0x00,
> 	"\\_SB.PCI0.GP17",
> 	0x00,
> 	0x00
> },
> 
> That first 0x00 means the constraint isn't actually enabled for the root
> port.
> 
> Mika,
> 
> Could you get an acpidump from one of these problematic Intel systems so we
> can check the PEP constraints to see if this theory works? Or maybe you have
> some other ideas why this is different?

The patch adding this was merged in 2016 and unfortunately I don't have
any of the ACPI dumps from them available anymore (and do not recall the
details either). I think these were Apollo Lake-P based systems with the
initial runtime D3cold and S0ix support at the time.