Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] PCI: ACPI: PM: Do not use pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:32 PM Ferry Toth <fntoth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Op 23-09-2021 om 15:51 schreef Ferry Toth:
> > Repost (with formatting removed, sorry for the noise)
> > Op 23-09-2021 om 13:30 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki:
> >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:31 PM Ferry Toth<fntoth@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> Op 20-09-2021 om 21:17 schreef Rafael J. Wysocki:
> >>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki<rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> Using struct pci_platform_pm_ops for ACPI adds unnecessary
> >>>> indirection to the interactions between the PCI core and ACPI PM,
> >>>> which is also subject to retpolines.
> >>>>
> >>>> Moreover, it is not particularly clear from the current code that,
> >>>> as far as PCI PM is concerned, "platform" really means just ACPI
> >>>> except for the special casess when Intel MID PCI PM is used or when
> >>>> ACPI support is disabled (through the kernel config or command line,
> >>>> or because there are no usable ACPI tables on the system).
> >>>>
> >>>> To address the above, rework the PCI PM code to invoke ACPI PM
> >>>> functions directly as needed and drop the acpi_pci_platform_pm
> >>>> object that is not necessary any more.
> >>>>
> >>>> Accordingly, update some of the ACPI PM functions in question to do
> >>>> extra checks in case the ACPI support is disabled (which previously
> >>>> was taken care of by avoiding to set the pci_platform_ops pointer
> >>>> in those cases).
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki<rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> v1 -> v2:
> >>>>       * Rebase on top of the new [1/7] and move dropping struct
> >>>>         pci_platform_pm_ops to a separate patch.
> >>> I wanted to test this series on 5.15-rc2 but this patch 2/7 doesn't
> >>> apply (after 1/7 applied). Should I apply this on another tree?
> >> This is on top of
> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/2793105.e9J7NaK4W3@kreacher/
> >>
> >> which is not yet in any tree.
> >>
> >> Sorry for the confusion.
> > No problem at all. If I can I will try to report back tonight. Else,
> > will be delayed 2 due to a short break.
>
> With those 3 extra patches followed by 7 from this series it builds. But
> on boot I get:
> dwc3 dwc3.0.auto: this is not a DesignWare USB3 DRD Core
> Then after this it reboots. Nothing in the logs. Nothing else on
> console, I guess something goes wrong early.

It appears so.

Can you please try just the 3 extra patches this series is on top of?
The problem is more likely to be located in one of them.