Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] ACPI/pci_slot: update PCI slot information when PCI hotplug event happens

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 03:40:45 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 03:03:53 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >> > Well, I don't see what functional problems that can bring.
> >> >
> >> > In theory people may want to have them as modules to avoid loading them on
> >> > systems that don't use PCI hotplug, but honestly I think that the complexity
> >> > this causes us to deal with is not worth it.
> >> >
> >> > Moreover, removing the modularity may actually allow us to solve some ordering
> >> > issues once and for good.
> >>
> >> No, the world is not really ideal yet.
> >>
> >> looks like laptops have problem with pci express cards.
> >>
> >> when pciehp is used, surprise insert/removal does not work because
> >> PresDect does not change properly, so no interrupt is generated.
> >> --- i suspects that is silicon problem.
> >>
> >> but when acpiphp is used, that surprise  insert/removal is working.
> >>
> >> some laptop like thinkpad, just don't give osc to kernel..
> >> [    0.505117]  pci0000:00: Requesting ACPI _OSC control (0x1d)
> >> [    0.505413]  pci0000:00: ACPI _OSC request failed (AE_SUPPORT),
> >> returned control mask: 0x0d
> >> [    0.505517] ACPI _OSC control for PCIe not granted, disabling ASPM
> >>
> >> and other laptop give that to kernel, in recent kernel will not give
> >> acpiphp to have that slot, because it want to hold that for pciehp.
> >> poor user have to pass 'pci_aspm=off" to disable _OSC for all.
> >> --- please check the mail that i forward to you yesterday.
> >
> > Yes, this is a bug, but I'm not sure how to fix it yet.
> 
> add one command line to control it so do not claim that in osc_control?

That's one option, although not very attractive so to speak.

> >> Anyway, we do need to let the user to have choice to use acpiphp and pciehp.
> >> and it should be first come and first serve policy.
> >
> > And that's why you think they should be modules?  I disagree if so.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> maybe we can have pci=nopciehp in command line just we pci=noaer...
>
> that should handle some corner cases.

Yes.  In any case the user should be able to say "I know better", but having
to express that through the "right" ordering of modules is somewhat less than
straightforward in my opinion.

I need to reconsider that code again, maybe I'll figure out what can be done.
It looks like the assumptions it was written with don't really reflect the
reality entirely.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.