Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] PCI: Decouple D3Hot and D3Cold handling for bridges

[Manivannan Sadhasivam]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 08:45:59PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 11:25:02AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam via B4 Relay wrote:
> > From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Currently, there is no proper distinction between D3Hot and D3Cold while
> > handling the power management for PCI bridges. For instance,
> > pci_bridge_d3_allowed() API decides whether it is allowed to put the
> > bridge in D3, but it doesn't explicitly specify whether D3Hot or D3Cold
> > is allowed in a scenario. This often leads to confusion and may be prone
> > to errors.
> > 
> > So let's split the D3Hot and D3Cold handling where possible. The current
> > pci_bridge_d3_allowed() API is now split into pci_bridge_d3hot_allowed()
> > and pci_bridge_d3cold_allowed() APIs and used in relevant places.
> 
> s/So let's split/Split/
> 
> > Also, pci_bridge_d3_update() API is now renamed to
> > pci_bridge_d3cold_update() since it was only used to check the possibility
> > of D3Cold.
> > 
> > Note that it is assumed that only D3Hot needs to be checked while
> > transitioning the bridge during runtime PM and D3Cold in other places. In
> > the ACPI case, wakeup is now only enabled if both D3Hot and D3Cold are
> > allowed for the bridge.
> > 
> > Still, there are places where just 'd3' is used opaquely, but those are
> > hard to distinguish, hence left for future cleanups.
> 
> The spec does use "D3Hot/D3Cold" (with Hot/Cold capitalized and
> subscripted), but most Linux doc and comments use "D3hot" and
> "D3cold", so I think we should stick with the Linux convention (it's
> not 100%, but it's a pretty big majority).
> 
> > -	if (pci_dev->bridge_d3_allowed)
> > +	if (pci_dev->bridge_d3cold_allowed && pci_dev->bridge_d3hot_allowed)
> 
> Much of this patch is renames that could be easily reviewed.  But
> there are a few things like this that are not simple renames.  Can you
> split out these non-rename things to their own patch(es) with their
> own explanations?
> 

I can, but I do not want these cleanups/refactoring to delay merging the patch
4. Are you OK if I just send it standalone and work on the refactoring as a
separate series?

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்