Re: [PATCH v5] PCI/ACPI: PCI/ACPI: Validate devices with power resources support D3

[Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 09:37:58AM -0600, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> On 11/14/2022 09:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 10:42 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:58:28PM -0600, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> > > > On 11/11/2022 11:41, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 05:33:55PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > > > > > Firmware typically advertises that ACPI devices that represent PCIe
> > > > > > devices can support D3 by a combination of the value returned by
> > > > > > _S0W as well as the HotPlugSupportInD3 _DSD [1].
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > `acpi_pci_bridge_d3` looks for this combination but also contains
> > > > > > an assumption that if an ACPI device contains power resources the PCIe
> > > > > > device it's associated with can support D3.  This was introduced
> > > > > > from commit c6e331312ebf ("PCI/ACPI: Whitelist hotplug ports for
> > > > > > D3 if power managed by ACPI").
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Some firmware configurations for "AMD Pink Sardine" do not support
> > > > > > wake from D3 in _S0W for the ACPI device representing the PCIe root
> > > > > > port used for tunneling. The PCIe device will still be opted into
> > > > > > runtime PM in the kernel [2] because of the logic within
> > > > > > `acpi_pci_bridge_d3`. This currently happens because the ACPI
> > > > > > device contains power resources.
> > > 
> > > Wait.  Is this as simple as just recognizing that:
> > > 
> > >    _PS0 means the OS has a knob to put the device in D0, but it doesn't
> > >    mean the device can wake itself from a low-power state.  The OS has
> > >    to use _S0W to learn the device's ability to wake itself.
> > 
> > It is.
> > 
> > > If that's enough, maybe we don't need to complicate this with all the
> > > Thunderbolt and device link stuff.  Which would be great, because the
> > > code change itself has nothing to do with those things.
> > 
> > Indeed.
> 
> I'd think it's still useful to leave "something" in the commit message about
> how we got to that conclusion though.
> 
> Bjorn, do you want me to to attempt to rewrite the commit message and send a
> v6, or would you like to?

Let me give it a try and post it for your reaction.

Bjorn