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

[Ferry Toth]

Hi,

Op 24-09-2021 om 14:02 schreef 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.
Yes, I hope to be able to that this evening.