lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] PCI/ASPM: Save/restore L1SS Capability for suspend/resume
From
Thanks Lukasz for the update.
I think confirms that there is no issue with the patch as such.
Bjorn, could you please define the next step for this patch?

Thanks,
Vidya Sagar

On 8/8/2022 7:37 PM, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> śr., 3 sie 2022 o 14:55 Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> napisał(a):
>>
>> Thanks Lukasz for the logs.
>> I still that the L1SS capability in the root port (00:14.0) disappeared
>> after resume.
>> I still don't understand how this patch can make the capability register
>> itself disappear. Honestly, I still see this as a HW issue.
>> Bjorn, could you please throw some light on this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vidya Sagar
>>
>> On 8/3/2022 5:34 PM, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>
>>>
>>> pt., 29 lip 2022 o 16:36 Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> napisał(a):
>>>>
>>>> Hi Lukasz,
>>>> Thanks for sharing your observations.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please also share the output of 'sudo lspci -vvvv' before and
>>>> after suspend-resume cycle with the latest linux-next?
>>>> Do we still see the L1SS capabilities getting disappeared post resume?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vidya Sagar
>>>>
>>>> On 7/29/2022 3:09 PM, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
>>>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wt., 26 lip 2022 o 09:20 Lukasz Majczak <lma@semihalf.com> napisał(a):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wt., 26 lip 2022 o 00:51 Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com> napisał(a):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 10:03 AM Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agree with Bjorn's observations.
>>>>>>>> The fact that the L1SS capability registers themselves disappeared in
>>>>>>>> the root port post resume indicates that there seems to be something
>>>>>>>> wrong with the BIOS itself.
>>>>>>>> Could you please check from that perspective?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ChromeOS Intel platforms use S0ix (suspend-to-idle) for suspend. This
>>>>>>> is a shallower sleep state that preserves more state than, for e.g. S3
>>>>>>> (suspend-to-RAM). When we use S0ix, then BIOS does not come in picture
>>>>>>> at all. i.e. after the kernel runs its suspend routines, it just puts
>>>>>>> the CPU into S0ix state. So I do not think there is a BIOS angle to
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Vidya Sagar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2022 11:12 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>>>>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 11:41:14AM +0200, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> pt., 22 lip 2022 o 09:31 Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com> napisał(a):
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 6:38 PM Ben Chuang <benchuanggli@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 2:00 PM Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Previously ASPM L1 Substates control registers (CTL1 and CTL2) weren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> saved and restored during suspend/resume leading to L1 Substates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration being lost post-resume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Save the L1 Substates control registers so that the configuration is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> retained post-resume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tested-by: Abhishek Sahu <abhsahu@nvidia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Vidya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I tested this patch on kernel v5.19-rc6.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The test device is GL9755 card reader controller on Intel i5-10210U RVP.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch can restore L1SS after suspend/resume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The test results are as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After Boot:
>>>>>>>>>>>> #lspci -d 17a0:9755 -vvv | grep -A5 "L1 PM Substates"
>>>>>>>>>>>> Capabilities: [110 v1] L1 PM Substates
>>>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+
>>>>>>>>>>>> ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+
>>>>>>>>>>>> PortCommonModeRestoreTime=255us
>>>>>>>>>>>> PortTPowerOnTime=3100us
>>>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+
>>>>>>>>>>>> T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=3145728ns
>>>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=3100us
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After suspend/resume without this patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>> #lspci -d 17a0:9755 -vvv | grep -A5 "L1 PM Substates"
>>>>>>>>>>>> Capabilities: [110 v1] L1 PM Substates
>>>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+
>>>>>>>>>>>> ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+
>>>>>>>>>>>> PortCommonModeRestoreTime=255us
>>>>>>>>>>>> PortTPowerOnTime=3100us
>>>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2- PCI-PM_L1.1- ASPM_L1.2- ASPM_L1.1-
>>>>>>>>>>>> T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=0ns
>>>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=10us
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After suspend/resume with this patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>> #lspci -d 17a0:9755 -vvv | grep -A5 "L1 PM Substates"
>>>>>>>>>>>> Capabilities: [110 v1] L1 PM Substates
>>>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+
>>>>>>>>>>>> ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+
>>>>>>>>>>>> PortCommonModeRestoreTime=255us
>>>>>>>>>>>> PortTPowerOnTime=3100us
>>>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+
>>>>>>>>>>>> T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=3145728ns
>>>>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=3100us
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tested-by: Ben Chuang <benchuanggli@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Forgot to add mine:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tested-by: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Chuang
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kenneth R. Crudup <kenny@panix.com>, Could you please verify this patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your laptop (Dell XPS 13) one last time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, the regression observed on your laptop with an old version of the patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be due to a buggy old version BIOS in the laptop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vidya Sagar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pci.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pci.h | 4 ++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> index cfaf40a540a8..aca05880aaa3 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1667,6 +1667,7 @@ int pci_save_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> return i;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_save_ltr_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_save_aspm_l1ss_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_save_dpc_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_save_aer_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_save_ptm_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1773,6 +1774,7 @@ void pci_restore_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * LTR itself (in the PCIe capability).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_restore_ltr_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_restore_aspm_l1ss_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_restore_pcie_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_restore_pasid_state(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3489,6 +3491,11 @@ void pci_allocate_cap_save_buffers(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (error)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_err(dev, "unable to allocate suspend buffer for LTR\n");
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + error = pci_add_ext_cap_save_buffer(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + 2 * sizeof(u32));
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (error)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_err(dev, "unable to allocate suspend buffer for ASPM-L1SS\n");
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_allocate_vc_save_buffers(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>> index e10cdec6c56e..92d8c92662a4 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -562,11 +562,15 @@ void pcie_aspm_init_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void pcie_aspm_exit_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void pcie_aspm_pm_state_change(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void pcie_aspm_powersave_config_link(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +void pci_save_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +void pci_restore_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> #else
>>>>>>>>>>>>> static inline void pcie_aspm_init_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> static inline void pcie_aspm_exit_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> static inline void pcie_aspm_pm_state_change(struct pci_dev *pdev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> static inline void pcie_aspm_powersave_config_link(struct pci_dev *pdev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline void pci_save_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline void pci_restore_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev) { }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCIE_ECRC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> index a96b7424c9bc..2c29fdd20059 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -726,6 +726,50 @@ static void pcie_config_aspm_l1ss(struct pcie_link_state *link, u32 state)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PCI_L1SS_CTL1_L1SS_MASK, val);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +void pci_save_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + int aspm_l1ss;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 *cap;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pci_is_pcie(dev))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + aspm_l1ss = pci_find_ext_capability(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!aspm_l1ss)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + save_state = pci_find_saved_ext_cap(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!save_state)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + cap = (u32 *)&save_state->cap.data[0];
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_read_config_dword(dev, aspm_l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL2, cap++);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_read_config_dword(dev, aspm_l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, cap++);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +void pci_restore_aspm_l1ss_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + int aspm_l1ss;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct pci_cap_saved_state *save_state;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 *cap;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pci_is_pcie(dev))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + aspm_l1ss = pci_find_ext_capability(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!aspm_l1ss)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + save_state = pci_find_saved_ext_cap(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_L1SS);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!save_state)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + cap = (u32 *)&save_state->cap.data[0];
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_write_config_dword(dev, aspm_l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL2, *cap++);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + pci_write_config_dword(dev, aspm_l1ss + PCI_L1SS_CTL1, *cap++);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> static void pcie_config_aspm_dev(struct pci_dev *pdev, u32 val)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pcie_capability_clear_and_set_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.17.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With this patch (and also mentioned
>>>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220509073639.2048236-1-kai.heng.feng@canonical.com/)
>>>>>>>>>> applied on 5.10 (chromeos-5.10) I am observing problems after
>>>>>>>>>> suspend/resume with my WiFi card - it looks like whole communication
>>>>>>>>>> via PCI fails. Attaching logs (dmesg, lspci -vvv before suspend/resume
>>>>>>>>>> and after) https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/fb36dfa2eff22911109dfb91ab0fc0e3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I played a little bit with this code and it looks like the
>>>>>>>>>> pci_write_config_dword() to the PCI_L1SS_CTL1 breaks it (don't know
>>>>>>>>>> why, not a PCI expert).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for testing this! I'm not quite sure what to make of the
>>>>>>>>> results since v5.10 is fairly old (Dec 2020) and I don't know what
>>>>>>>>> other changes are in chromeos-5.10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lukasz: I assume you are running this on Atlas and are seeing this bug
>>>>>>> when uprev'ving it to 5.10 kernel. Can you please try it on a newer
>>>>>>> Intel platform that have the latest upstream kernel running already
>>>>>>> and see if this can be reproduced there too?
>>>>>>> Note that the wifi PCI device is different on newer Intel platforms,
>>>>>>> but platform design is similar enough that I suspect we should see
>>>>>>> similar bug on those too. The other option is to try the latest
>>>>>>> ustream kernel on Atlas. Perhaps if we just care about wifi (and
>>>>>>> ignore bringing up the graphics stack and GUI), it may come up
>>>>>>> sufficiently enough to try this patch?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rajat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Random observations, no analysis below. This from your dmesg
>>>>>>>>> certainly looks like PCI reads failing and returning ~0:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Timeout waiting for hardware access (CSR_GP_CNTRL 0xffffffff)
>>>>>>>>> iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: 00000000: ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff
>>>>>>>>> iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Device gone - attempting removal
>>>>>>>>> Hardware became unavailable upon resume. This could be a software issue prior to suspend or a hardware issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And then we re-enumerate 01:00.0 and it looks like it may have been
>>>>>>>>> reset (BAR is 0):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> pci 0000:01:00.0: [8086:095a] type 00 class 0x028000
>>>>>>>>> pci 0000:01:00.0: reg 0x10: [mem 0x00000000-0x00001fff 64bit]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lspci diffs from before/after suspend:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 00:14.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation Celeron N3350/Pentium N4200/Atom E3900 Series PCI Express Port B #1 (rev fb) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])
>>>>>>>>> Bus: primary=00, secondary=01, subordinate=01, sec-latency=64
>>>>>>>>> - DevSta: CorrErr- NonFatalErr+ FatalErr- UnsupReq+ AuxPwr+ TransPend-
>>>>>>>>> + DevSta: CorrErr+ NonFatalErr- FatalErr- UnsupReq- AuxPwr+ TransPend-
>>>>>>>>> - LnkCtl: ASPM L1 Enabled; RCB 64 bytes, Disabled- CommClk+
>>>>>>>>> + LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes, Disabled- CommClk+
>>>>>>>>> - LnkSta2: Current De-emphasis Level: -6dB, EqualizationComplete- EqualizationPhase1-
>>>>>>>>> + LnkSta2: Current De-emphasis Level: -3.5dB, EqualizationComplete- EqualizationPhase1-
>>>>>>>>> - Capabilities: [150 v0] Null
>>>>>>>>> - Capabilities: [200 v1] L1 PM Substates
>>>>>>>>> - L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+
>>>>>>>>> - PortCommonModeRestoreTime=40us PortTPowerOnTime=10us
>>>>>>>>> - L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+
>>>>>>>>> - T_CommonMode=40us LTR1.2_Threshold=98304ns
>>>>>>>>> - L1SubCtl2: T_PwrOn=60us
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The DevSta differences might be BIOS bugs, probably not relevant.
>>>>>>>>> Interesting that ASPM is disabled, maybe didn't get enabled after
>>>>>>>>> re-enumerating 01:00.0? Strange that the L1 PM Substates capability
>>>>>>>>> disappeared.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 01:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation Wireless 7265 (rev 59)
>>>>>>>>> LnkCtl: ASPM L1 Enabled; RCB 64 bytes, Disabled- CommClk+
>>>>>>>>> - ExtSynch- ClockPM+ AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt-
>>>>>>>>> + ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt-
>>>>>>>>> Capabilities: [154 v1] L1 PM Substates
>>>>>>>>> L1SubCap: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+ L1_PM_Substates+
>>>>>>>>> PortCommonModeRestoreTime=30us PortTPowerOnTime=60us
>>>>>>>>> - L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2+ PCI-PM_L1.1+ ASPM_L1.2+ ASPM_L1.1+
>>>>>>>>> - T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=98304ns
>>>>>>>>> + L1SubCtl1: PCI-PM_L1.2- PCI-PM_L1.1- ASPM_L1.2- ASPM_L1.1-
>>>>>>>>> + T_CommonMode=0us LTR1.2_Threshold=0ns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dmesg claimed we reconfigured common clock config. Maybe ASPM didn't
>>>>>>>>> get reinitialized after re-enumeration? Looks like we didn't restore
>>>>>>>>> L1SubCtl1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bjorn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you all for the response and input! As Rajat mentioned I'm using
>>>>>> chromebook - but not Atlas (Amberlake) - in this case it is Babymega
>>>>>> (Apollolake) - I will try to load most recent kernel and give it a
>>>>>> try once again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Lukasz
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have applied this patch on top of v5.19-rc7 (chromeos) and I'm
>>>>> still getting same results:
>>>>> https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/4b716704c21a3758d6711b2030ea34b9
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Lukasz
>>>>>
>>> Hi Vidya,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the long delay, I have retested your patch on top of
>>> linux-next/master (next-20220802) - the results for my device remain
>>> the same.
>>> Here are the logs (lspci -vvv before suspend, lspci -vvv after resume and dmesg)
>>> https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/c7bfd811359f23278034056a8002b3ef
>>> Let me know if you need any more logs and/or tests.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Lukasz
>>>
> Hi Vidya,
>
> After your last email, I've re-tested my setup and (without your
> patch) the capability register also disappears - so it looks there is
> - in fact - some problem in my setup and your patch just brings it to
> the top as after resume tries to write to a register that is no longer
> present. I'm very sorry for the confusion here and I've not notice
> that at the very beginning.
>
> Best regards,
> Lukasz
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-08 18:17    [W:0.402 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site