Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] r8169: Reinstate ALDPS and ASPM support | From | Kai-Heng Feng <> | Date | Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:58:52 +0800 |
| |
Hi, Bjorn,
at 01:28, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 06:34:09AM +0000, Ryankao wrote: >> Add realtek folk Hau >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kai Heng Feng [mailto:kai.heng.feng@canonical.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 1:02 PM >> To: jrg.otte@gmail.com >> Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Hayes Wang >> <hayeswang@realtek.com>; hkallweit1@gmail.com; romieu@fr.zoreil.com; >> Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Linux Kernel Mailing List >> <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Ryankao <ryankao@realtek.com> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: Reinstate ALDPS and ASPM support >> >> Hi Jörg Otte, >> >> Can you give this patch a try? >> >> Since you are the only one that reported ALDPS/ASPM regression, >> >> And I think this patch should solve the issue you had [1]. >> >> Hopefully we don't need to go down the rabbit hole of >> blacklist/whitelist... >> >> Kai-Heng >> >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/5/36 > > I have no idea what ALDPS is. It's not mentioned in the PCIe spec, so > presumably it's some Realtek-specific thing. ASPM is a generic PCIe > thing. Changes to these two things should be in separate patches so > they don't get tangled up.
Sure, I'll split them in two. I'll also consult with Realtek to explain what ALDPS actually does.
> >>> On Jun 5, 2018, at 12:58 PM, Kai-Heng Feng >>> <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> This patch reinstate ALDPS and ASPM support on r8169. >>> >>> On some Intel platforms, ASPM support on r8169 is the key factor to >>> let Package C-State achieve PC8. Without ASPM support, the deepest >>> Package C-State can hit is PC3. PC8 can save additional ~3W in >>> comparison with PC3. >>> >>> This patch is from Realtek. >>> >>> Fixes: e0c075577965 ("r8169: enable ALDPS for power saving") >>> Fixes: d64ec841517a ("r8169: enable internal ASPM and clock request >>> settings") > >>> +3507,15 @@ static void rtl8168e_1_hw_phy_config(struct >>> rtl8169_private *tp) >>> rtl_writephy(tp, 0x0d, 0x4007); >>> rtl_writephy(tp, 0x0e, 0x0000); >>> rtl_writephy(tp, 0x0d, 0x0000); >>> + >>> + /* Check ALDPS bit, disable it if enabled */ >>> + rtl_writephy(tp, 0x1f, 0x0000); >>> + if (enable_aldps) >>> + rtl_w0w1_phy(tp, 0x15, 0x1000, 0x0000); >>> + else if (rtl_readphy(tp, 0x15) & 0x1000) >>> + rtl_w0w1_phy(tp, 0x15, 0x0000, 0x1000); > > There's a lot of repetition of this code with minor variations. You > could probably factor it out and make it more concise and more > readable.
You are right. Will do.
> >>> +static void rtl8169_check_link_status(struct net_device *dev, >>> + struct rtl8169_private *tp) { >>> + struct device *d = tp_to_dev(tp); >>> + >>> + if (tp->link_ok(tp)) { >>> + rtl_link_chg_patch(tp); >>> + /* This is to cancel a scheduled suspend if there's one. */ >>> + if (pm_request_resume(d)) >>> + _rtl_reset_work(tp); >>> + netif_carrier_on(dev); >>> + if (net_ratelimit()) >>> + netif_info(tp, ifup, dev, "link up\n"); >>> + } else { >>> + netif_carrier_off(dev); >>> + netif_info(tp, ifdown, dev, "link down\n"); >>> + pm_runtime_idle(d); >>> + } >>> +} > > This function apparently just got moved around without changing > anything. That's fine, but the move should be in a separate patch to > make the real changes easier to review.
It actually added a new condition to check the return value of pm_request_resume().
It's probably a bogus check though. I'll ask Realtek why they did this.
> >>> @@ -7649,8 +7757,12 @@ static int rtl_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, >>> const struct pci_device_id *ent) >>> >>> /* disable ASPM completely as that cause random device stop working >>> * problems as well as full system hangs for some PCIe devices users */ >>> - pci_disable_link_state(pdev, PCIE_LINK_STATE_L0S | PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1 | >>> - PCIE_LINK_STATE_CLKPM); >>> + if (!enable_aspm) { >>> + pci_disable_link_state(pdev, PCIE_LINK_STATE_L0S | >>> + PCIE_LINK_STATE_L1 | >>> + PCIE_LINK_STATE_CLKPM); >>> + netif_info(tp, probe, dev, "ASPM disabled\n"); >>> + } > > ASPM is a generic PCIe feature that should be configured by the PCI > core without any help from the device driver. > > If code in the driver is needed, that means either the PCI core is > doing it wrong and we should fix it there, or the device is broken and > the driver is working around the erratum. > > If this is an erratum, you should include details about exactly what's > broken and (ideally) a URL to the published erratum. Otherwise this > is just unmaintainable black magic and likely to be broken by future > ASPM changes in the PCI core. > > ASPM configuration is done by the PCI core before drivers are bound to > the device. If you need device-specific workarounds, they should > probably be in quirks so they're done before the core does that ASPM > configuration.
You are right.
I think calling pci_disable_link_state() is unnecessary, I'll also consult with Realtek about this.
I'll also do some testing and send a separate patch to remove pci_disable_link_state() for -rc kernel to test if this is something really needed.
Kai-Heng
> >>> /* enable device (incl. PCI PM wakeup and hotplug setup) */ >>> rc = pcim_enable_device(pdev); >>> -- >>> 2.17.0 >> >> ------Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
| |