Re: [PATCH v4 06/11] PCI/ASPM: Clear aspm_disable as part of __pci_enable_link_state()

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2624 bytes --]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 06:00:13PM GMT, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 04:38:48PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > 
> > > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> > > @@ -1826,8 +1826,8 @@ static inline int pcie_set_target_speed(struct pci_dev *port,
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_PCIEASPM
> > >  int pci_disable_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, int state);
> > >  int pci_disable_link_state_locked(struct pci_dev *pdev, int state);
> > > -int pci_enable_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, int state);
> > 
> > AFAICT there's no caller of this at all.  Why do we keep it?
> > 
> 
> I'm just working on a series to convert the ath{10/11/12}k drivers to use this
> API instead of modifying LNKCTL register directly:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/pci.c#n961

Great. I assume but "this API" you meant disable/enable link state that 
are real pair unlike the current pci_enable_link_state()?

Did ath1xk need to do some hw specific register updates when changing ASPM 
state?

I tried to do similar conversion in r8169 (and actually also ath1xk too) 
but it was a while ago already. If I understood the code correctly, r8169 
seems to write some HW specific registers when changing ASPM state so I 
would have likely need to add some ops for it to play nice with state 
changes not originating from the driver itself but from the ASPM driver, 
which is where the work then stalled.

> > > -int pci_enable_link_state_locked(struct pci_dev *pdev, int state);
> > 
> > We only have two callers of this (pcie-qcom.c and vmd.c, both in
> > drivers/pci/), so it's not clear to me that it needs to be in
> > include/linux/pci.h.
> > 
> > I'm a little dubious about it in the first place since I don't think
> > drivers should be enabling ASPM states on their own, but pcie-qcom.c
> > and vmd.c are PCIe controller drivers, not PCI device drivers, so I
> > guess we can live with them for now.
> > 
> > IMO the "someday" goal should be that we get rid of aspm_policy and
> > enable all the available power saving states by default.  We have
> > sysfs knobs that administrators can use if necessary, and drivers or
> > quirks can disable states if they need to work around hardware
> > defects.
> 
> Yeah, I think the default should be powersave and let the users disable it for
> performance if they want.

I'm certainly not against improvements in this front, but I think we need 
to get rid off custom ASPM disable code from the drivers first.

-- 
 i.