Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: starfive: Enable PCIe controller's runtime PM before probing host bridge

[Manivannan Sadhasivam]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 01:08:41PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 11:18:17PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 12:23:21PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 09:26:07AM -0700, Mayank Rana wrote:
> > > > PCIe controller device (i.e. PCIe starfive device) is parent to PCIe host
> > > > bridge device. To enable runtime PM of PCIe host bridge device (child
> > > > device), it is must to enable parent device's runtime PM to avoid seeing
> > > > the below warning from PM core:
> > > > 
> > > > pcie-starfive 940000000.pcie: Enabling runtime PM for inactive device
> > > > with active children
> > > > 
> > > > Fix this issue by enabling starfive pcie controller device's runtime PM
> > > > before calling pci_host_probe() in plda_pcie_host_init().
> > > > 
> > > > Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mayank Rana <quic_mrana@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > I want this in the same series as Krishna's patch to turn on runtime
> > > PM of host bridges.  That's how I know they need to be applied in
> > > order.  If they're not in the same series, they're likely to be
> > > applied out of order.
> > 
> > There is no harm in applying this patch on its own. It fixes a legit
> > issue of enabling the parent runtime PM before the child as required
> > by the PM core. Rest of the controller drivers follow the same
> > pattern.
> > 
> > I fail to understand why you want this to be combined with Krishna's
> > patch. That patch is only a trigger, but even without that patch the
> > issue still exists (not user visible ofc).
> 
> I don't want it *combined* with Krishna's patch.
> 
> I want this applied *before* Krishna's patch because if we apply
> Krishna's patch first, we have some interval where we report the
> "Enabling runtime PM for inactive device with active children" error.
> 

No, I was asking why can't this be applied *first* and then Kirshna's patch? Why
do you want this to be again resent in a separate series?

Both patches are in a mergeable state already. So they can be applied in order.

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்