1. 31 7月, 2012 1 次提交
    • R
      ACPI / PCI: Do not try to acquire _OSC control if that is hopeless · 2d9c8677
      Rafael J. Wysocki 提交于
      If acpi_pci_osc_support() fails for the given flags, it doesn't make
      sense to call acpi_pci_osc_control_set() down the road for the same
      flags, because it will certainly fail too.  Moreover, problem
      diagnostics is then harder, because it is not too easy to identify
      the reason of the _OSC failure in those cases.
      
      For this reason, check the status returned by acpi_pci_osc_support()
      for PCIe support flags and do not attempt to execute
      acpi_pci_osc_control_set() for those flags and print a message if
      it's "failure".  For compatibility with the existing code, disable
      ASPM in that case too.
      Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
      Signed-off-by: NLen Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
      2d9c8677
  2. 07 1月, 2012 1 次提交
    • M
      PCI: Rework ASPM disable code · 10f6dc7e
      Matthew Garrett 提交于
      Right now we forcibly clear ASPM state on all devices if the BIOS indicates
      that the feature isn't supported. Based on the Microsoft presentation
      "PCI Express In Depth for Windows Vista and Beyond", I'm starting to think
      that this may be an error. The implication is that unless the platform
      grants full control via _OSC, Windows will not touch any PCIe features -
      including ASPM. In that case clearing ASPM state would be an error unless
      the platform has granted us that control.
      
      This patch reworks the ASPM disabling code such that the actual clearing
      of state is triggered by a successful handoff of PCIe control to the OS.
      The general ASPM code undergoes some changes in order to ensure that the
      ability to clear the bits isn't overridden by ASPM having already been
      disabled. Further, this theoretically now allows for situations where
      only a subset of PCIe roots hand over control, leaving the others in the
      BIOS state.
      
      It's difficult to know for sure that this is the right thing to do -
      there's zero public documentation on the interaction between all of these
      components. But enough vendors enable ASPM on platforms and then set this
      bit that it seems likely that they're expecting the OS to leave them alone.
      
      Measured to save around 5W on an idle Thinkpad X220.
      Signed-off-by: NMatthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      10f6dc7e
  3. 06 12月, 2011 1 次提交
    • M
      PCI: Rework ASPM disable code · 3c076351
      Matthew Garrett 提交于
      Right now we forcibly clear ASPM state on all devices if the BIOS indicates
      that the feature isn't supported. Based on the Microsoft presentation
      "PCI Express In Depth for Windows Vista and Beyond", I'm starting to think
      that this may be an error. The implication is that unless the platform
      grants full control via _OSC, Windows will not touch any PCIe features -
      including ASPM. In that case clearing ASPM state would be an error unless
      the platform has granted us that control.
      
      This patch reworks the ASPM disabling code such that the actual clearing
      of state is triggered by a successful handoff of PCIe control to the OS.
      The general ASPM code undergoes some changes in order to ensure that the
      ability to clear the bits isn't overridden by ASPM having already been
      disabled. Further, this theoretically now allows for situations where
      only a subset of PCIe roots hand over control, leaving the others in the
      BIOS state.
      
      It's difficult to know for sure that this is the right thing to do -
      there's zero public documentation on the interaction between all of these
      components. But enough vendors enable ASPM on platforms and then set this
      bit that it seems likely that they're expecting the OS to leave them alone.
      
      Measured to save around 5W on an idle Thinkpad X220.
      Signed-off-by: NMatthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      3c076351
  4. 14 7月, 2011 1 次提交
  5. 11 5月, 2011 1 次提交
  6. 22 3月, 2011 2 次提交
    • N
      PCI: Disable ASPM when _OSC control is not granted for PCIe services · eca67315
      Naga Chumbalkar 提交于
      v3 -> v2: Added text to describe the problem
      v2 -> v1: Split this patch from v1
      v1	: Part of: http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&m=130042212003242&w=2
      
      Disable ASPM when no _OSC control for PCIe services is granted
      by the BIOS. This is to protect systems with a buggy BIOS that
      did not set the ACPI FADT "ASPM Controls" bit even though the
      underlying HW can't do ASPM.
      
      To turn "on" ASPM the minimum the BIOS needs to do:
      1. Clear the ACPI FADT "ASPM Controls" bit.
      2. Support _OSC appropriately
      
      There is no _OSC Control bit for ASPM. However, we expect the BIOS to
      support _OSC for a Root Bridge that originates a PCIe hierarchy. If this
      is not the case - we are better off not enabling ASPM on that server.
      
      Commit 852972ac (ACPI: Disable ASPM if the
      Platform won't provide _OSC control for PCIe) describes the above scenario.
      To quote verbatim from there:
      [The PCI SIG documentation for the _OSC OS/firmware handshaking interface
      states:
      
      "If the _OSC control method is absent from the scope of a host bridge
      device, then the operating system must not enable or attempt to use any
      features defined in this section for the hierarchy originated by the host
      bridge."
      
      The obvious interpretation of this is that the OS should not attempt to use
      PCIe hotplug, PME or AER - however, the specification also notes that an
      _OSC method is *required* for PCIe hierarchies, and experimental validation
      with An Alternative OS indicates that it doesn't use any PCIe functionality
      if the _OSC method is missing. That arguably means we shouldn't be using
      MSI or extended config space, but right now our problems seem to be limited
      to vendors being surprised when ASPM gets enabled on machines when other
      OSs refuse to do so. So, for now, let's just disable ASPM if the _OSC
      method doesn't exist or refuses to hand over PCIe capability control.]
      Signed-off-by: NNaga Chumbalkar <nagananda.chumbalkar@hp.com>
      Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
      Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      eca67315
    • R
      PCI/ACPI: Report ASPM support to BIOS if not disabled from command line · 8b8bae90
      Rafael J. Wysocki 提交于
      We need to distinguish the situation in which ASPM support is
      disabled from the command line or through .config from the situation
      in which it is disabled, because the hardware or BIOS can't handle
      it.  In the former case we should not report ASPM support to the BIOS
      through ACPI _OSC, but in the latter case we should do that.
      
      Introduce pcie_aspm_support_enabled() that can be used by
      acpi_pci_root_add() to determine whether or not it should report ASPM
      support to the BIOS through _OSC.
      
      Cc: stable@kernel.org
      References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29722
      References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20232Reported-and-tested-by: NOrtwin Glück <odi@odi.ch>
      Reviewed-by: NKenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
      Tested-by: NKenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
      Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      8b8bae90
  7. 17 1月, 2011 1 次提交
  8. 15 1月, 2011 1 次提交
  9. 16 10月, 2010 1 次提交
  10. 25 8月, 2010 5 次提交
    • R
      PCI: PCIe: Ask BIOS for control of all native services at once · 28eb5f27
      Rafael J. Wysocki 提交于
      After commit 852972ac (ACPI: Disable
      ASPM if the platform won't provide _OSC control for PCIe) control of
      the PCIe Capability Structure is unconditionally requested by
      acpi_pci_root_add(), which in principle may cause problems to
      happen in two ways.  First, the BIOS may refuse to give control of
      the PCIe Capability Structure if it is not asked for any of the
      _OSC features depending on it at the same time.  Second, the BIOS may
      assume that control of the _OSC features depending on the PCIe
      Capability Structure will be requested in the future and may behave
      incorrectly if that doesn't happen.  For this reason, control of
      the PCIe Capability Structure should always be requested along with
      control of any other _OSC features that may depend on it (ie. PCIe
      native PME, PCIe native hot-plug, PCIe AER).
      
      Rework the PCIe port driver so that (1) it checks which native PCIe
      port services can be enabled, according to the BIOS, and (2) it
      requests control of all these services simultaneously.  In
      particular, this causes pcie_portdrv_probe() to fail if the BIOS
      refuses to grant control of the PCIe Capability Structure, which
      means that no native PCIe port services can be enabled for the PCIe
      Root Complex the given port belongs to.  If that happens, ASPM is
      disabled to avoid problems with mishandling it by the part of the
      PCIe hierarchy for which control of the PCIe Capability Structure
      has not been received.
      
      Make it possible to override this behavior using 'pcie_ports=native'
      (use the PCIe native services regardless of the BIOS response to the
      control request), or 'pcie_ports=compat' (do not use the PCIe native
      services at all).
      
      Accordingly, rework the existing PCIe port service drivers so that
      they don't request control of the services directly.
      Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      28eb5f27
    • R
      ACPI/PCI: Negotiate _OSC control bits before requesting them · 75fb60f2
      Rafael J. Wysocki 提交于
      It is possible that the BIOS will not grant control of all _OSC
      features requested via acpi_pci_osc_control_set(), so it is
      recommended to negotiate the final set of _OSC features with the
      query flag set before calling _OSC to request control of these
      features.
      
      To implement it, rework acpi_pci_osc_control_set() so that the caller
      can specify the mask of _OSC control bits to negotiate and the mask
      of _OSC control bits that are absolutely necessary to it.  Then,
      acpi_pci_osc_control_set() will run _OSC queries in a loop until
      the mask of _OSC control bits returned by the BIOS is equal to the
      mask passed to it.  Also, before running the _OSC request
      acpi_pci_osc_control_set() will check if the caller's required
      control bits are present in the final mask.
      
      Using this mechanism we will be able to avoid situations in which the
      BIOS doesn't grant control of certain _OSC features, because they
      depend on some other _OSC features that have not been requested.
      Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      75fb60f2
    • R
      ACPI/PCI: Do not preserve _OSC control bits returned by a query · 2b8fd918
      Rafael J. Wysocki 提交于
      There is the assumption in acpi_pci_osc_control_set() that it is
      always sufficient to compare the mask of _OSC control bits to be
      requested with the result of an _OSC query where all of the known
      control bits have been checked.  However, in general, that need not
      be the case.  For example, if an _OSC feature A depends on an _OSC
      feature B and control of A, B plus another _OSC feature C is
      requested simultaneously, the BIOS may return A, B, C, while it would
      only return C if A and C were requested without B.
      
      That may result in passing a wrong mask of _OSC control bits to an
      _OSC control request, in which case the BIOS may only grant control
      of a subset of the requested features.  Moreover, acpi_pci_run_osc()
      will return error code if that happens and the caller of
      acpi_pci_osc_control_set() will not know that it's been granted
      control of some _OSC features.  Consequently, the system will
      generally not work as expected.
      
      Apart from this acpi_pci_osc_control_set() always uses the mask
      of _OSC control bits returned by the very first invocation of
      acpi_pci_query_osc(), but that is done with the second argument
      equal to OSC_PCI_SEGMENT_GROUPS_SUPPORT which generally happens
      to affect the returned _OSC control bits.
      
      For these reasons, make acpi_pci_osc_control_set() always check if
      control of the requested _OSC features will be granted before making
      the final control request.  As a result, the osc_control_qry and
      osc_queried members of struct acpi_pci_root are not necessary any
      more, so drop them and remove the remaining code referring to them.
      Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      2b8fd918
    • R
      ACPI/PCI: Make acpi_pci_query_osc() return control bits · ab8e8957
      Rafael J. Wysocki 提交于
      Make acpi_pci_query_osc() use an additional pointer argument to
      return the mask of control bits obtained from the BIOS to the
      caller.
      Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      ab8e8957
    • R
      ACPI/PCI: Reorder checks in acpi_pci_osc_control_set() · b879dc4b
      Rafael J. Wysocki 提交于
      Make acpi_pci_osc_control_set() attempt to find the handle of the
      _OSC object under the given PCI root bridge object after verifying
      that its second argument is correct and that there is a struct
      acpi_pci_root object for the given root bridge handle, which is
      more logical than the old code.
      Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
      Reviewed-by: NHidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      b879dc4b
  11. 31 7月, 2010 1 次提交
    • M
      ACPI: Disable ASPM if the platform won't provide _OSC control for PCIe · 852972ac
      Matthew Garrett 提交于
      The PCI SIG documentation for the _OSC OS/firmware handshaking interface
      states:
      
      "If the _OSC control method is absent from the scope of a host bridge
      device, then the operating system must not enable or attempt to use any
      features defined in this section for the hierarchy originated by the host
      bridge."
      
      The obvious interpretation of this is that the OS should not attempt to use
      PCIe hotplug, PME or AER - however, the specification also notes that an
      _OSC method is *required* for PCIe hierarchies, and experimental validation
      with An Alternative OS indicates that it doesn't use any PCIe functionality
      if the _OSC method is missing. That arguably means we shouldn't be using
      MSI or extended config space, but right now our problems seem to be limited
      to vendors being surprised when ASPM gets enabled on machines when other
      OSs refuse to do so. So, for now, let's just disable ASPM if the _OSC
      method doesn't exist or refuses to hand over PCIe capability control.
      Acked-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
      Signed-off-by: NMatthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      852972ac
  12. 04 4月, 2010 2 次提交
  13. 30 3月, 2010 1 次提交
    • T
      include cleanup: Update gfp.h and slab.h includes to prepare for breaking... · 5a0e3ad6
      Tejun Heo 提交于
      include cleanup: Update gfp.h and slab.h includes to prepare for breaking implicit slab.h inclusion from percpu.h
      
      percpu.h is included by sched.h and module.h and thus ends up being
      included when building most .c files.  percpu.h includes slab.h which
      in turn includes gfp.h making everything defined by the two files
      universally available and complicating inclusion dependencies.
      
      percpu.h -> slab.h dependency is about to be removed.  Prepare for
      this change by updating users of gfp and slab facilities include those
      headers directly instead of assuming availability.  As this conversion
      needs to touch large number of source files, the following script is
      used as the basis of conversion.
      
        http://userweb.kernel.org/~tj/misc/slabh-sweep.py
      
      The script does the followings.
      
      * Scan files for gfp and slab usages and update includes such that
        only the necessary includes are there.  ie. if only gfp is used,
        gfp.h, if slab is used, slab.h.
      
      * When the script inserts a new include, it looks at the include
        blocks and try to put the new include such that its order conforms
        to its surrounding.  It's put in the include block which contains
        core kernel includes, in the same order that the rest are ordered -
        alphabetical, Christmas tree, rev-Xmas-tree or at the end if there
        doesn't seem to be any matching order.
      
      * If the script can't find a place to put a new include (mostly
        because the file doesn't have fitting include block), it prints out
        an error message indicating which .h file needs to be added to the
        file.
      
      The conversion was done in the following steps.
      
      1. The initial automatic conversion of all .c files updated slightly
         over 4000 files, deleting around 700 includes and adding ~480 gfp.h
         and ~3000 slab.h inclusions.  The script emitted errors for ~400
         files.
      
      2. Each error was manually checked.  Some didn't need the inclusion,
         some needed manual addition while adding it to implementation .h or
         embedding .c file was more appropriate for others.  This step added
         inclusions to around 150 files.
      
      3. The script was run again and the output was compared to the edits
         from #2 to make sure no file was left behind.
      
      4. Several build tests were done and a couple of problems were fixed.
         e.g. lib/decompress_*.c used malloc/free() wrappers around slab
         APIs requiring slab.h to be added manually.
      
      5. The script was run on all .h files but without automatically
         editing them as sprinkling gfp.h and slab.h inclusions around .h
         files could easily lead to inclusion dependency hell.  Most gfp.h
         inclusion directives were ignored as stuff from gfp.h was usually
         wildly available and often used in preprocessor macros.  Each
         slab.h inclusion directive was examined and added manually as
         necessary.
      
      6. percpu.h was updated not to include slab.h.
      
      7. Build test were done on the following configurations and failures
         were fixed.  CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL was turned off for all tests (as my
         distributed build env didn't work with gcov compiles) and a few
         more options had to be turned off depending on archs to make things
         build (like ipr on powerpc/64 which failed due to missing writeq).
      
         * x86 and x86_64 UP and SMP allmodconfig and a custom test config.
         * powerpc and powerpc64 SMP allmodconfig
         * sparc and sparc64 SMP allmodconfig
         * ia64 SMP allmodconfig
         * s390 SMP allmodconfig
         * alpha SMP allmodconfig
         * um on x86_64 SMP allmodconfig
      
      8. percpu.h modifications were reverted so that it could be applied as
         a separate patch and serve as bisection point.
      
      Given the fact that I had only a couple of failures from tests on step
      6, I'm fairly confident about the coverage of this conversion patch.
      If there is a breakage, it's likely to be something in one of the arch
      headers which should be easily discoverable easily on most builds of
      the specific arch.
      Signed-off-by: NTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
      Guess-its-ok-by: NChristoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
      Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
      Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
      5a0e3ad6
  14. 24 2月, 2010 1 次提交
  15. 23 2月, 2010 1 次提交
    • R
      PCI / ACPI / PM: Platform support for PCI PME wake-up · b67ea761
      Rafael J. Wysocki 提交于
      Although the majority of PCI devices can generate PMEs that in
      principle may be used to wake up devices suspended at run time,
      platform support is generally necessary to convert PMEs into wake-up
      events that can be delivered to the kernel.  If ACPI is used for this
      purpose, PME signals generated by a PCI device will trigger the ACPI
      GPE associated with the device to generate an ACPI wake-up event that
      we can set up a handler for, provided that everything is configured
      correctly.
      
      Unfortunately, the subset of PCI devices that have GPEs associated
      with them is quite limited.  The devices without dedicated GPEs have
      to rely on the GPEs associated with other devices (in the majority of
      cases their upstream bridges and, possibly, the root bridge) to
      generate ACPI wake-up events in response to PME signals from them.
      
      Add ACPI platform support for PCI PME wake-up:
      o Add a framework making is possible to use ACPI system notify
        handlers for run-time PM.
      o Add new PCI platform callback ->run_wake() to struct
        pci_platform_pm_ops allowing us to enable/disable the platform to
        generate wake-up events for given device.  Implemet this callback
        for the ACPI platform.
      o Define ACPI wake-up handlers for PCI devices and PCI root buses and
        make the PCI-ACPI binding code register wake-up notifiers for all
        PCI devices present in the ACPI tables.
      o Add function pci_dev_run_wake() which can be used by PCI drivers to
        check if given device is capable of generating wake-up events at
        run time.
      
      Developed in cooperation with Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>.
      Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      b67ea761
  16. 17 1月, 2010 1 次提交
    • M
      acpi: make ACPI device id constant · c97adf9e
      Márton Németh 提交于
      The ids field of the struct acpi_driver is constant in <linux/acpi/acpi_bus.h>
      so it is worth to make the initialization data also constant.
      
      The semantic match that finds this kind of pattern is as follows:
      (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
      
      // <smpl>
      @r@
      disable decl_init,const_decl_init;
      identifier I1, I2, x;
      @@
      	struct I1 {
      	  ...
      	  const struct I2 *x;
      	  ...
      	};
      @s@
      identifier r.I1, y;
      identifier r.x, E;
      @@
      	struct I1 y = {
      	  .x = E,
      	};
      @c@
      identifier r.I2;
      identifier s.E;
      @@
      	const struct I2 E[] = ... ;
      @depends on !c@
      identifier r.I2;
      identifier s.E;
      @@
      +	const
      	struct I2 E[] = ...;
      // </smpl>
      Signed-off-by: NMárton Németh <nm127@freemail.hu>
      Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
      Cc: cocci@diku.dk
      Signed-off-by: NLen Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
      c97adf9e
  17. 17 12月, 2009 1 次提交
  18. 13 10月, 2009 1 次提交
  19. 10 9月, 2009 1 次提交
  20. 29 8月, 2009 1 次提交
  21. 26 6月, 2009 1 次提交
  22. 20 6月, 2009 5 次提交
  23. 18 6月, 2009 5 次提交
  24. 20 3月, 2009 2 次提交
  25. 08 1月, 2009 1 次提交