On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 04:10:53PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> PCI core/ASPM service driver allows controlling ASPM state through
> pci_disable_link_state() and pci_enable_link_state() API. It was
> decided earlier (see the Link below), to not allow ASPM changes when OS
> does not have control over it but only log a warning about the problem
> (commit 2add0ec14c25 ("PCI/ASPM: Warn when driver asks to disable ASPM,
> but we can't do it")). Similarly, if ASPM is not enabled through
> config, ASPM cannot be disabled.
>
> A number of drivers have added workarounds to force ASPM off with own
> writes into the Link Control Register (some even with comments
> explaining why PCI core does not disable it under some circumstances).
> According to the comments, some drivers require ASPM to be off for
> reliable operation.
>
> Having custom ASPM handling in drivers is problematic because the state
> kept in the ASPM service driver is not updated by the changes made
> outside the link state management API.
>
> As the first step to address this issue, make pci_disable_link_state()
> to unconditionally disable ASPM so the motivation for drivers to come
> up with custom ASPM handling code is eliminated.
>
> Place the minimal ASPM disable handling into own file as it is too
> complicated to fit into a header as static inline and it has almost no
> overlap with the existing, more complicated ASPM code in
> drivers/pci/pce/aspm.c.
>
> Make pci_disable_link_state() function comment to comply kerneldoc
> formatting while changing the description.
>
> Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/canux_p3f5yhbzx3wgu-j1agpbxb_t9bis2erhvkkfmtdvza...@mail.gmail.com/
> Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230511131441.45704-1-ilpo.jarvi...@linux.intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvi...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/pci/pcie/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 33 ++++++++++-------
> drivers/pci/pcie/aspm_minimal.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/pci.h | 6 +--
> 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 drivers/pci/pcie/aspm_minimal.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/Makefile b/drivers/pci/pcie/Makefile
> index 8de4ed5f98f1..ec7f04037b01 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/Makefile
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ pcieportdrv-y := portdrv.o rcec.o
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_PCIEPORTBUS) += pcieportdrv.o
>
> +obj-y += aspm_minimal.o
Can we put this code in drivers/pci/pci.c instead of creating a new
file for it? pci.c is kind of a dumping ground and isn't ideal
either, but we do have a few other things there that we *always* want
even though they're related to a separate Kconfig feature, e.g.,
pci_bridge_reconfigure_ltr(), pcie_clear_device_status(),
pcie_clear_root_pme_status().
> obj-$(CONFIG_PCIEASPM) += aspm.o
Or maybe it would be better to just put it in aspm.c, drop this
compilation guard, and wrap the rest of the file in #ifdef
CONFIG_PCIEASPM. Then everything would be in one file, which is a
major boon for code readers.
What do you think?
> obj-$(CONFIG_PCIEAER) += aer.o err.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PCIEAER_INJECT) += aer_inject.o
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> index 860bc94974ec..ec6d7a092ac1 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
> @@ -1042,16 +1042,23 @@ static int __pci_disable_link_state(struct pci_dev
> *pdev, int state, bool sem)
> return -EINVAL;
> /*
> * A driver requested that ASPM be disabled on this device, but
> - * if we don't have permission to manage ASPM (e.g., on ACPI
> + * if we might not have permission to manage ASPM (e.g., on ACPI
> * systems we have to observe the FADT ACPI_FADT_NO_ASPM bit and
> - * the _OSC method), we can't honor that request. Windows has
> - * a similar mechanism using "PciASPMOptOut", which is also
> - * ignored in this situation.
> + * the _OSC method), previously we chose to not honor disable
> + * request in that case. Windows has a similar mechanism using
> + * "PciASPMOptOut", which is also ignored in this situation.
> + *
> + * Not honoring the requests to disable ASPM, however, led to
> + * drivers forcing ASPM off on their own. As such changes of ASPM
> + * state are not tracked by this service driver, the state kept here
> + * became out of sync.
> + *
> + * Therefore, honor ASPM disable requests even when OS does not have
> + * ASPM control. Plain disable for ASPM is assumed to be slightly
> + * safer than fully managing it.
> */
> - if (aspm_disabled) {
> - pci_warn(pdev, "can't disable ASPM; OS doesn't have ASPM
> control\n");
> - return -EPERM;
> - }
> + if (aspm_disabled)
> + pci_warn(pdev, "OS doesn't have ASPM control, disabling ASPM
> anyway\n");
I think this is better than the previous situation, but I think we
should taint the kernel here because it's possible the firmware had a
reason for retaining ASPM control, so we might be stepping on
something. Arguably the message is already enough of a signal, but
checking for a taint is potentially a little more automatable.
> +int pci_disable_link_state_locked(struct pci_dev *pdev, int state)
> +{
> + struct pci_dev *parent = pdev->bus->self;
> + struct pci_bus *linkbus = pdev->bus;
> + struct pci_dev *child;
> + u16 aspm_enabled, linkctl;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!parent)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + ret = pcie_capability_read_word(parent, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, &linkctl);
> + if (ret != PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL)
> + return pcibios_err_to_errno(ret);
> + aspm_enabled = linkctl & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_ASPMC;
In this case, we don't care about the shift offset of the
PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_ASPMC bitfield, but if we use FIELD_GET() in most/all
other cases where we look at PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, maybe it would be worth
using it here as well?
Tangent, but I'm always dubious about the idea that e1000e is so
special that only there do we need the "_locked" variant of this
function. No suggestion though; no need to do anything about it in
this series ;)
> + ret = pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, &linkctl);
> + if (ret != PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL)
> + return pcibios_err_to_errno(ret);
> + aspm_enabled |= linkctl & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_ASPMC;
> +
> + /* If no states need to be disabled, don't touch LNKCTL */
> + if (state & aspm_enabled)
> + return 0;
> +
> + ret = pcie_capability_clear_word(parent, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL,
> PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_ASPMC);
> + if (ret != PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL)
> + return pcibios_err_to_errno(ret);
> + list_for_each_entry(child, &linkbus->devices, bus_list)
> + pcie_capability_clear_word(child, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL,
> PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_ASPMC);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_disable_link_state_locked);
_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
