Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] PCI: Decouple D3Hot and D3Cold handling for bridges

[Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 09:22:17PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 08:45:59PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 11:25:02AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam via B4 Relay wrote:
> > > From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
> > > 
> > > Currently, there is no proper distinction between D3Hot and D3Cold while
> > > handling the power management for PCI bridges. For instance,
> > > pci_bridge_d3_allowed() API decides whether it is allowed to put the
> > > bridge in D3, but it doesn't explicitly specify whether D3Hot or D3Cold
> > > is allowed in a scenario. This often leads to confusion and may be prone
> > > to errors.
> > > 
> > > So let's split the D3Hot and D3Cold handling where possible. The current
> > > pci_bridge_d3_allowed() API is now split into pci_bridge_d3hot_allowed()
> > > and pci_bridge_d3cold_allowed() APIs and used in relevant places.
> > 
> > s/So let's split/Split/
> > 
> > > Also, pci_bridge_d3_update() API is now renamed to
> > > pci_bridge_d3cold_update() since it was only used to check the possibility
> > > of D3Cold.
> > > 
> > > Note that it is assumed that only D3Hot needs to be checked while
> > > transitioning the bridge during runtime PM and D3Cold in other places. In
> > > the ACPI case, wakeup is now only enabled if both D3Hot and D3Cold are
> > > allowed for the bridge.
> > > 
> > > Still, there are places where just 'd3' is used opaquely, but those are
> > > hard to distinguish, hence left for future cleanups.
> > 
> > The spec does use "D3Hot/D3Cold" (with Hot/Cold capitalized and
> > subscripted), but most Linux doc and comments use "D3hot" and
> > "D3cold", so I think we should stick with the Linux convention (it's
> > not 100%, but it's a pretty big majority).
> > 
> > > -	if (pci_dev->bridge_d3_allowed)
> > > +	if (pci_dev->bridge_d3cold_allowed && pci_dev->bridge_d3hot_allowed)
> > 
> > Much of this patch is renames that could be easily reviewed.  But
> > there are a few things like this that are not simple renames.  Can you
> > split out these non-rename things to their own patch(es) with their
> > own explanations?
> 
> I can, but I do not want these cleanups/refactoring to delay merging
> the patch 4. Are you OK if I just send it standalone and work on the
> refactoring as a separate series?

You mean to send patch 4/4 standalone, and do the rest separately?
That sounds reasonable to me.