From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF6BA37AA86; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 22:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777414364; cv=none; b=qa7aZTekMOgcDJrQXV+eTWK01qO8X92neFY2AAwV9thxxG0Q46BrDEDd5mzKZAYWuWA/cjs9db5acVK93PBD/G+84Td43UlOMAPXn9Vnmx/ph/RYA4xaWF6MtUn8BGr8qOzW1BW/3LldyrNoexu1aL9crF9+h7UQKa7rvp2NPLA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777414364; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CAvegt6Dc5+x0/H24NVIcdd99sIGb6Ak9wGep1sQfbA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=VQ40kyzuqiprF4Ko4Crm5tDXYgn9jOAP9vJvxrK9TInMcI45RD3skujqK3unWAd3BRXWPpERkLw5gTTdLlBXgZJxOMy8ld/vj0IHESPwboixyflpVdENieiNddqRFtSGjbuQDrTUFbLLOWv+fBxlrduLcqYDajSaOLkocHqfxfA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=rSqZSmgd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="rSqZSmgd" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DDD3C2BCAF; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 22:12:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1777414364; bh=CAvegt6Dc5+x0/H24NVIcdd99sIGb6Ak9wGep1sQfbA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=rSqZSmgdN6DB9TvbncHtHtDVILqsFashoQVxCjcEvmEDsgE7mXlClNSbk+KrEyvlw 6I0APiFy6zactxPAEIsQWnrMGS4j9TsIpkyaI+kUIRER8QRRtRp8Qy5hxuxFhDvf9t RJBeLZrUG6uraa6KVWqYwgnw5UNBCU12avocNdZM2FdkfkiAVSVqwOLy45Wq46g65P NJCQGORis2kTu+yMMaXLiSOWDG8Yh7B08akIuKYs+GrA8uCoZQmmWKHYlo+rIUOyjb O699TMrsN+H11lBggxxHu7SbGH8zikpGNVWHhLTd9pJ+ZEV79duOqDkwBzqcEjQg1d VZygvUMVL4BUg== Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:12:43 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Mario Limonciello Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , "open list:PCI SUBSYSTEM" , open list , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Lukas Wunner , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Improvements to PCI hibernate path Message-ID: <20260428221243.GA259307@bhelgaas> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 05:02:16PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: > On 4/28/26 16:51, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 03:50:18PM -0500, Mario Limonciello (AMD) wrote: > > > A few cycles ago I sent out a kernel series for using the S4 paths when > > > the system goes to S5. Some parts of it got merged, and Rafael suggested > > > to split the other parts into smaller pieces across multiple kernel cycles > > > to make bisecting easier. > > > > Thanks for posting this again. Sashiko had a few questions: > > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260427205024.254677-1-superm1%40kernel.org > > > > I didn't look at them in detail, although I did think the ACPI r6.5 > > sec 16.1.5 reference was a little bit obscure. The diagram in sec > > 16.1 certainly implies that wakeups only occur in S1-S4 and not in S5. > > > > Sec 16.1.5 does mention "Remote Start", which is completely undefined > > by the spec but searching does find sec 7.4.2.6, which clearly says > > the system requires a complete boot when awakened. Possibly a little > > misleading to refer to Remote Start as "awakening" when it's > > apparently not a "wakeup". > > > > That section also says "OSPM does not disable wake events > > before setting the SLP_EN bit when entering the S5 system state." > > Yeah; especially the comments on patch #2 I'm not in agreement with it. > > How exactly do you want to handle the rest of the Sashiko comments? I > suppose one option is to copy and paste them all to refute the ones I agree > or disagree with. > > But I was thinking let you and Lukas provide comments and then I'll rev for > your comments (if necessary) and then ones that I agree with Sashiko, ignore > the rest. It's a fair question. From my perspective I don't think it scales very well for me to go through all the Sashiko comments and figure out whether they make sense. The trivial kernel-doc comment is definitely legit. The others would take me significant legwork to evaluate.