Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 2/5] igc: Let the PCI core deal with the PM resume flow

Mika Westerberg
2026-02-26T11:12:34Z

On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 03:56:44PM -0800, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 10:58:37AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 12:10:41PM +0100, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >> > Currently igc driver calls pci_set_power_state() and pci_restore_state()
> >> > and the like to bring the device back from low power states. However,
> >> > PCI core handles all this on behalf of the driver. Furthermore with PTM
> >> > enabled the PCI core re-enables it on resume but the driver calls
> >> > pci_restore_state() which ends up disabling it again.
> >> >
> >> > For this reason let the PCI core handle the common PM resume flow.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> >> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
> >>
> >> I love it, thanks a lot for doing this!
> >>
> >> Do we still need the pci_enable_device_mem() and pci_set_master()
> >> in __igc_resume()?
> >>
> >> I suppose some of that is related to the pci_disable_device() in the
> >> suspend path (__igc_shutdown()), but there are only a few dozen
> >> drivers that do this, so I'm not sure it's essential.
> >
> > I think they are just as you describe due the fact there are explicit
> > pci_disable_device() calls. Probably we can get rid of them as well but
> > that requires careful testing that nothing accidentally breaks.
> >
>
> This series is solving real problems (thank you btw), I think the
> pci_disable_device() one would be better as a separate series.

Okay works for me :)