Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] PCI/ASPM: Add pci_force_enable_link_state() API and convert Atheros drivers

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6321 bytes --]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2026, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 03:51:17PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > [+cc Emmanuel, Matthew]
> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 04:30:14PM +0200, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > This series converts the atheros WLAN drivers (ath10k/ath11k/ath12k) to
> > > use the PCI core ASPM APIs for enabling/disabling ASPM instead of writing
> > > to the LNKCTL register directly. Touching LNKCTL behind the PCI core's
> > > back leaves the ASPM service driver's view of the link state out of sync
> > > with the hardware, which is not nice.
> > > 
> > > The catch is that these drivers save the currently enabled ASPM states,
> > > disable ASPM before firmware download, and restore the saved states
> > > afterwards. pci_enable_link_state() cannot restore states that were
> > > disabled via pci_disable_link_state() or blacklisted during init (like
> > > the pre-1.1 device blacklist, which is only meant to be overridden with
> > > pcie_aspm=force), and that is intentional. So the save/restore sequence
> > > cannot be expressed with the existing APIs.
> > > 
> > > In v2 I tried to fix this by making pci_enable_link_state*() symmetric
> > > with the disable APIs, but as pointed out during review, that also ends
> > > up overriding the init-time blacklist for every caller (including VMD),
> > > which is not something we want. So instead, this version adds a separate
> > > pci_force_enable_link_state() API (patch 2) that re-enables the requested
> > > states unconditionally. The caller is responsible for only asking for
> > > states the device actually supports, and the ath drivers do this by
> > > restoring exactly what pcie_aspm_enabled() reported earlier.
> > > 
> > > The first five patches touch the PCI core: patch 1 (from Ilpo) makes
> > > pci_disable_link_state() disable ASPM unconditionally, patch 2 adds the
> > > new API, patch 3 moves the D0 transition needed before enabling PCI-PM
> > > L1 PM Substates (PCIe r6.0, sec 5.5.4) into the shared helper and drops
> > > it from the vmd and pcie-qcom callers, patch 4 cleans up the kernel-doc,
> > > and patch 5 makes pcie_aspm_enabled() return the enabled state mask so it
> > > can be used for save/restore. The last three patches convert the ath
> > > drivers.
> > > 
> > > Testing
> > > =======
> > > 
> > > I've tested this series on a Lenovo Thinkpad T14s with WCN7850 (so that's
> > > just the ath12k driver). Rest of the drivers are compile tested only.
> > > 
> > > Merging Strategy
> > > ================
> > > 
> > > Even though there is no build dependency between the PCI core and atheros
> > > patches, there is a functional dependency. So I'd recommend creating an
> > > immutable branch with the PCI patches and merging that branch into both
> > > the PCI and linux-wireless trees, and finally merging the atheros patches
> > > into the linux-wireless tree.
> > > 
> > > If the immutable branch seems like a hassle, then the PCI core patches
> > > could get merged first and the atheros patches can wait for the next
> > > cycle.
> > > 
> > > - Mani
> > > 
> > > Changes in v3:
> > > * Dropped the change that made pci_enable_link_state*() symmetric with the
> > >   disable APIs. Instead added a new pci_force_enable_link_state() API used
> > >   only by the ath drivers, so the init-time blacklist stays overridable
> > >   only via pcie_aspm=force and existing callers like VMD are left
> > >   untouched.
> > > * Fixed the locked path to use pci_set_power_state_locked() for the D0
> > >   transition. The previous version called the non-locked variant, which
> > >   re-acquires pci_bus_sem.
> > > * ath drivers now disable PCIE_LINK_STATE_ASPM_ALL instead of
> > >   PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL so that CLKPM is preserved and can be restored
> > >   (pcie_aspm_enabled() doesn't report CLKPM).
> > > * Reworked the kernel-doc patch to cover both the enable and disable APIs
> > >   and reference the new API.
> > > * Rebased on top of v7.2-rc1.
> > > 
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > * Reworked the pcie_aspm_enabled() API to return the enabled states
> > >   instead of bool and used it to save/restore the ASPM states in ath
> > >   drivers.
> > > * Added a patch from Ilpo to disable ASPM even if BIOS didn't grant
> > >   permission.
> > > * Added the CONFIG_PCIEASPM dependency to ath{10/11/12}k drivers.
> > > * Rebased on top of v6.17-rc1.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@oss.qualcomm.com>
> > > ---
> > > Ilpo Järvinen (1):
> > >       PCI/ASPM: Always disable ASPM when driver requests it
> > 
> > I put this first patch on pci/aspm for v7.4 because there seems to be
> > a consensus that it's better to have the ASPM core disable things even
> > if it doesn't technically have control of ASPM, because the
> > alternative is that drivers just do it themselves, also ignoring ASPM
> > ownership concerns.  Having the drivers do it just means the PCI core
> > ASPM support doesn't know what's happening.
> > 
> > I think we should defer the rest of these because I think there's a
> > little room to make the enable/disable/force-enable dance more
> > intuitive for the drivers.  As far as I know, the rest of the series
> > is definite cleanups but doesn't fix any actual functional issues.
> > 
> 
> I wouldn't just categorize the rest of the patches as mere cleanups. They are
> indeed fixing an obvious race between PCI core and the driver doing ASPM dance
> at the same time.

Agreed.

> But for sure, even after these patches, one can trigger the
> same race between sysfs 'config' and the driver/PCI core, but that's more of an
> user trying to perform an action to trigger a race vs race happening within the
> kernel without user intervention (which is too bad).

Which is why I suggested moving to a counter based approach so we could 
arbitrarily overlap any number of disable/enable pairs for a state in 
arbitrary order, no matter what's the source.

> I'd really like to see a way forward for these patches, even with a new API and
> not let them fall through the cracks.

Me too. The needs have simply outgrown the old API (which was never good 
anyway due to its asymmetry caveat).

-- 
 i.