Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: pciehp: Don't enable PME on runtime suspend

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday, February 06, 2017 10:20:41 PM Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 11:54:05AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 06:54:37AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > Since commit 68db9bc81436 ("PCI: pciehp: Add runtime PM support for PCIe
> > > hotplug ports") we runtime suspend a hotplug port to D3hot when all its
> > > children are runtime suspended or none are present.
> > > 
> > > When runtime suspending the port the PCI core automatically enables PME:
> > >     pci_pm_runtime_suspend()
> > >         pci_finish_runtime_suspend()
> > >             __pci_enable_wake()
> > > 
> > > According to the PCI Express Base Specification, section 6.7.3.4:
> > >    "Note that PME and Hot-Plug Event interrupts (when both are
> > >     implemented) always share the same MSI or MSI-X vector [...]
> > >     If wake generation is required by the associated form factor
> > >     specification, a hot-plug capable Downstream Port must support
> > >     generation of a wakeup event (using the PME mechanism) on hotplug
> > >     events that occur when the system is in a sleep state or the Port
> > >     is in device state D1, D2, or D3Hot."
> > > 
> > > Thus, if the port is runtime suspended even though it is still occupied,
> > > it may immediately be woken by a PME interrupt.
> > 
> > The spec goes on to say that a wakeup event should be generated when
> > all three of these conditions occur:
> > 
> >   - status register for an enabled [hotplug] event transitions from
> >     not set to set
> > 
> >   - Port is in D1, D2, or D3hot,
> > 
> >   - PME_En is set
> > 
> > I think you're saying that if we put a hotplug-capable port that
> > controls an occupied slot into D3hot, the port may immediately
> > generate a wakeup PME.
> > 
> > What is the hotplug event that causes generation of this wakeup event?
> 
> If you had read all e-mails in this thread or looked at the bugzilla
> entry I've created, you wouldn't have to ask this question.
> 
> I think it's disappointing that you're asking me to jump through
> various hoops like creating a bugzilla entry, as well as threatening
> to revert my patch, but are unwilling to even look at the bugzilla
> entry or read the entire thread.  It is equally disappointing that
> the reporter of the regression was unwilling or unable to provide
> dmesg output for both machines so that we've got no real idea what
> we're dealing with.
> 
> It's a Link Up event.
> 
> Which doesn't make sense of course because per the spec PME is only
> supposed to be signaled when the Link Status *changes* from 0 to 1,

BTW, where exactly did you find this bit in the spec?

Thanks,
Rafael