Re: [PATCH] thunderbolt: Fix PCIe device enumeration with delayed rescan

[Mika Westerberg]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 03:35:36PM -0600, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 2/18/26 1:21 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > On 2/12/26 6:34 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > > ++
> > > 
> > > On 2/12/2026 1:34 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > [+Cc AMD folks]
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 08:07:54AM +0100, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 12:16:03PM +0800, AceLan Kao wrote:
> > > > > > > > Disable runpm on 62:02.0, then we have 83:00.0
> > > > > > > > and its downstream port
> > > > > > > > 84:01.0 and 85:00.0, and then the tbt storage is recognized.
> > > > > > Got troubles with mutt, my reply got rejected :(
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Using gmail and copy/paste the content below again.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Okay.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > Okay that means there is nothing wrong with the PCIe
> > > > > > > tunnel itself it's
> > > > > > > just that the PCIe side either does not get the PME
> > > > > > > or does not see that
> > > > > > > the PCIe link becomes active (e.g the PCIe
> > > > > > > Downstream Port runtime suspends
> > > > > > > itself before the link status changes).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > PME work so that there is wake first on Intel it's
> > > > > > > GPE that wakes up the
> > > > > > > root port and then PCIe stack wakes up devices and
> > > > > > > then the PME message is
> > > > > > > sent to the root complex.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If you do this on Intel host do you see the same?
> > > > > > Intel host exhibits another symptom, I think the root
> > > > > > cause is different.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Plug in the dock, and then plug in the tbt storage to the dock one by
> > > > > > one, both storage can be detected.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Plug both tbt storage to the dock, and then plug in the dock to the
> > > > > > machine, only one tbt storage appears. In rare chance, both tbt
> > > > > > storages show up, but most of the time, only one tbt
> > > > > > storage is detected.
> > > > > > In this case, none of disable runpm, rescan, or lspci work. So, it's
> > > > > > most likely another issue.
> > > > > 
> > > > > By "detected" you mean the TB device is not detected on TB
> > > > > bus? Or it is
> > > > > detected on TB bus but creating PCIe tunnel does not make the content
> > > > > visible on PCIe bus?
> > > > > 
> > > > > You can check this from dmesg, the driver logs if it sees
> > > > > the plug event.
> > > > > Or run tblist (from tbtools) and see if the device is listed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I suspect former and in that case it is likely a PD/retimer
> > > > > related issue
> > > > > rather than software. I see these once in a while especially with new
> > > > > hardware where the PD firmare is not yet stabilized. If
> > > > > there is TB/ USB4
> > > > > link then all is working from TB/USB4 perspective.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > Right at that point the PCIe Downstream Port probably is already back
> > > > > > > runtime suspended.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Here you could try this:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > # echo 250 >
> > > > > > > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:62:02.0/power/
> > > > > > > autosuspend_delay
> > > > > > No luck, I enlarged the number to 1000, but still can't recognize the
> > > > > > second tbt storage.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What about -1?
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's effectively same as blocking runtime PM completely so
> > > > > should work.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I tried to wake up the PCIe ports in the beginning of
> > > > > > tb_tunnel_pci() and
> > > > > > it works.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +       pdev = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(0, 0x62,
> > > > > > PCI_DEVFN(0x02, 0));
> > > > > > +       if (pdev) {
> > > > > > +               if (pdev->dev.power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDED)
> > > > > > +                       pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
> > > > > > +               pci_dev_put(pdev);
> > > > > > +       }
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But I can't find a generic way to get the bus and slot number, and
> > > > > > would you consider this a feasible approach?
> > > > > 
> > > > > No I don't want any (more) PCI related hacks in the driver.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is not a TB issue, it's a PCIe issue. I suspect it has
> > > > > something to do
> > > > > with handling PME/GPE on AMD side. Essentially when runtime
> > > > > PM is blocked
> > > > > the PCIe hotplug driver notices the tunnel just fine. When
> > > > > it is runtime
> > > > > suspended (e.g D3) it should send PME to the root complex
> > > > > that the brings
> > > > > the topology up so that the hotplug driver can detect the
> > > > > presence but this
> > > > > does not seem to happen.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you enable dynamic debugging of pciehp, do you see
> > > > > anything happening
> > > > > when you create the second PCIe tunnel? I suspect not.
> > > 
> > >  From what I see above I agree this does seem like a PME delivery
> > > issue of some sort.  Any chance you can put this on a PCIe analyzer
> > > and confirm whether the PME was ever sent?
> > 
> > We could reproduce the behavior on our side using a USB4 hub and two
> > NVME disks.  Keeping the root port for tunneling at D0 (turning off
> > runtime PM) avoided it.
> > 
> > In cross referencing an Intel system (Intel Core Ultra 200V) we saw that
> > it couldn't reproduce.  But looking at differences we noticed the root
> > port for tunneling on this system stayed at D0 the entire time.  Is that
> > expected?
> > 
> > 
> 
> Actually in further re-testing that was an incorrect observation.  Our
> internal team will keep digging into what's going on with the PME in the AMD
> case.

Okay thanks for the update!