From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755371AbYC0XwW (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:52:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752828AbYC0XwP (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:52:15 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:47957 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752648AbYC0XwO (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:52:14 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: iommu breaks usb after resume Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:52:00 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , kernel list , Greg KH References: <20080320111429.GA14764@elf.ucw.cz> <200803272130.38375.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080327234055.GB32617@elf.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20080327234055.GB32617@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803280052.01250.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, 28 of March 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2008-03-27 21:30:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, 26 of March 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > CONFIG_AGP=y > > > > > CONFIG_AGP_AMD64=y > > > > > CONFIG_AGP_INTEL=y > > > > > # CONFIG_AGP_SIS is not set > > > > > CONFIG_AGP_VIA=y > > > > > CONFIG_DRM=y > > > > > # CONFIG_DRM_TDFX is not set > > > > > > > > > > ...do I need to enable something more? > > > > > > > > Should have worked then. Ok modulo bugs. Maybe the ordering > > > > is wrong now (AGP resume would need to run before anything > > > > using the IOMMU) > > > > > > So agp_amd64_resume() is responsible for reiniting iommu on new amd64 > > > boxes? > > > > > > It is registered as normal pci driver: > > > > > > static struct pci_driver agp_amd64_pci_driver = { > > > .name = "agpgart-amd64", > > > .id_table = agp_amd64_pci_table, > > > .probe = agp_amd64_probe, > > > .remove = agp_amd64_remove, > > > #ifdef CONFIG_PM > > > .suspend = agp_amd64_suspend, > > > .resume = agp_amd64_resume, > > > #endif > > > }; > > > > > > ...should it be modified to run early, as other pci devices (USB > > > controllers) may rely on this? > > > > > > I did this... I'll verify it in 10 hours or so. If someone has amd64 > > > system with >=4G ram, there should be hibernation problems. This > > > should fix it: > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c b/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c > > > index d8200ac..4e85178 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c > > > +++ b/drivers/char/agp/amd64-agp.c > > > @@ -594,12 +594,14 @@ static int agp_amd64_suspend(struct pci_ > > > > > > static int agp_amd64_resume(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > > { > > > + printk("agp_amd64: resume\n"); > > > pci_set_power_state(pdev, PCI_D0); > > > pci_restore_state(pdev); > > > > > > if (pdev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA) > > > nforce3_agp_init(pdev); > > > > > > + printk("agp_amd64: 8151 configure\n"); > > > return amd_8151_configure(); > > > } > > > > > > @@ -733,8 +735,8 @@ static struct pci_driver agp_amd64_pci_d > > > .probe = agp_amd64_probe, > > > .remove = agp_amd64_remove, > > > #ifdef CONFIG_PM > > > - .suspend = agp_amd64_suspend, > > > - .resume = agp_amd64_resume, > > > + .suspend_late = agp_amd64_suspend, > > > + .resume_early = agp_amd64_resume, > > > #endif > > > }; > > > > Okay, a couple of questions: > > > > (1) Are you sure that the .suspend() and .resume() callbacks will just work > > with interrupts disabled? > > I have not really checked -- it turned out this is not "my" problem > after all. My machine (called leet) uses different setup. If they will > not, I guess lockdep will tell us ;-). Lockdep need not tell us about it, I think. OTOH, I don't really see a scenario in which having interrupts disabled while executing ->suspend() and ->resume() might hurt. > > (2) Even if they work, is it sufficient to just move them to the "late" and > > "early" parts? That is, isn't there anything using the iommu in the > > "early" and "late" callbacks of the other devices? > > We definitely have iommu users in "normal" callbacks: USB. Oh, there may be more. You never know what appears in future systems. :-) > I do not think we have iommu users in early/late callbacks... Perhaps not at the moment, but what's the guarantee there won't be any in the future? Rafael