Re: Linux 3.2.5

[Matthew Garrett]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 08:29:32AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Resulting in a broken system - aspm on the device, but not the bridge
> leading up to it. Which I do not think is a correct situation.

Per spec, it's valid. If there's a bridge that can't deal with its 
downstreams having ASPM enabled when it has ASPM disabled then we 
probably need to quirk that specially.

> (It's also broken because it fundamentally makes the aspm disable be
> "per device", which seems totally wrong - aspm is a system issue, you
> can't just willy-nilly randomly enable it for one device without
> taking other devices into account).

It's at *least* a per-bus thing, not a per-system thing. And, by the 
spec, it's completely valid to have a different set of states configured 
on the bridge and any downstream devices.

> So I suspect the whole pcie_aspm_sanity_check() function should go away.

The sanity check is important because nobody tests ASPM with pre-1.1 
devices. However, in the aspm-is-disabled-by-FADT case, I can believe 
that we should skip it.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/