Linux bluetooth development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sergey Lebedev <lsa.uz@pm.me>
To: Ravindra <ravindra@intel.com>
Cc: "Vladimir V . Kondratyev" <vladimirkondratyev2@gmail.com>,
	Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>, Kiran K <kiran.k@intel.com>,
	Chandrashekar Devegowda <chandrashekar.devegowda@intel.com>,
	Ravishankar Srivatsa <ravishankar.srivatsa@intel.com>,
	Chethan Tumkur Narayan <chethan.tumkur.narayan@intel.com>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
	Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>,
	linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: btintel_pcie: fix PM flow for S0ix, S3 and S4
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2026 09:10:29 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260902091021.20160-1-lsa.uz@pm.me> (raw)

Ravindra,

Paul Menzel pointed me at this patch from the thread on Vladimir
Kondratyev's stale-cache fix, since both change
btintel_pcie_set_dxstate(). They overlap textually and, more usefully,
they fix different halves of the same failure. I have the hardware and a
fixture for one of those halves, so here is what I can add.

Your change moves the flag out of the retry loop:

  +    data->gp0_received = false;
  +
       do {
  -        data->gp0_received = false;

That recovers the case where the alive interrupt is merely *late* — it
arrives while a later retry is waiting, and previously the per-iteration
reset threw it away. The comment you added states the invariant well.

What it does not cover is the interrupt being missed outright. When that
happens gp0_received never becomes true, the loop falls through to

      if (dxstate == BTINTEL_PCIE_STATE_D0) {
          if (btintel_pcie_in_d0(data))

and those helpers read data->boot_stage_cache, which only the interrupt
handler ever writes. No interrupt, no refresh: the fallback is asked to
decide using the value from before the transition, so it reports the old
state, every retry is exhausted, and -EBUSY aborts the suspend. Vladimir's
patch re-reads BTINTEL_PCIE_CSR_BOOT_STAGE_REG immediately before that
check, which is what btintel_pcie_resume() already does.

So the two are complementary rather than competing: yours makes a late
interrupt count, his makes a missing one survivable.

I can be concrete about the second half because I reproduced it
deliberately. Surface Pro 11 (Intel, Lunar Lake), Intel BE201, 8086:a876
rev 10. The driver was built out of tree with one debug-only parameter
that returns from btintel_pcie_msix_gp0_handler() before the
boot_stage_cache refresh, and only while alive_intr_ctxt is
BTINTEL_PCIE_D0 — the exact state a genuinely missed alive interrupt
leaves behind, with the controller still reaching D3.

Under that fixture, moving the flag out of the loop does not help: there
is no late interrupt to catch, and the cache stays stale. Three timeouts,
-EBUSY, suspend aborted. With the re-read, one timeout and the system
suspends. Method and logs are in
Message-ID <20260830151550.44687-1-lsa.uz@pm.me>.

The failure is not theoretical here. Before any workaround it aborted 2 of
the 3 suspends I attempted, and one device returning -EBUSY stops the
whole system from sleeping.

Whichever of the two lands first, the other will need a rebase — the
hunks touch adjacent lines. If it helps, I am happy to test them applied
together against my fixture and on ordinary suspend cycles, and to report
per-patch rather than as a combined result.

If you and Vladimir would prefer these as one series rather than two
independent patches, I am happy to do the assembly work — rebased, with
both of you as the authors of your respective halves and the Fixes: tags
kept separate, since they are separate bugs with separate reverts. I did
not want to send that uninvited over two patches that are already on the
list; say the word and it is a short job.

One question on your patch, from someone who does not have S4 on this
machine to check: .thaw now takes the normal D0 path, while .restore
forces FLR. After PM_EVENT_FREEZE the controller was put into D3_COLD by
btintel_pcie_suspend_late(). Is D3_COLD guaranteed to preserve firmware
across a freeze/thaw on this part, or does thaw also need the FLR path?

Thanks,
Sergey


             reply	other threads:[~2026-09-02  9:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-02  9:10 Sergey Lebedev [this message]
2026-09-02 13:38 ` [PATCH v2] Bluetooth: btintel_pcie: fix PM flow for S0ix, S3 and S4 Sergey Lebedev
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-09-02  4:28 Ravindra
2026-09-02  7:01 ` Paul Menzel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260902091021.20160-1-lsa.uz@pm.me \
    --to=lsa.uz@pm.me \
    --cc=chandrashekar.devegowda@intel.com \
    --cc=chethan.tumkur.narayan@intel.com \
    --cc=kiran.k@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luiz.dentz@gmail.com \
    --cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
    --cc=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de \
    --cc=ravindra@intel.com \
    --cc=ravishankar.srivatsa@intel.com \
    --cc=vladimirkondratyev2@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox