On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 14:43 +0000, mario.limoncie...@dell.com wrote:
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Srinivas Pandruvada [mailto:srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.c
> > om]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 5:54 PM
> > To: Limonciello, Mario <mario_limoncie...@dell.com>; rjw@rjwysocki.
> > net;
> > l...@kernel.org
> > Cc: linux...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> > a...@vger.kernel.org; lu...@wunner.de
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ACPI / Sleep: Check low power idle
> > constraints for
> > debug only
> >
> > On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 22:07 +0000, mario.limoncie...@dell.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = acpi_device_get_power(adev, &state);
> > > > + if (!ret)
> > > > + pr_debug("LPI: %s required min power
> > > > state
> > > > %d, current
> > > > power state %d, real power state %d\n",
> > > > + lpi_constraints_table[i].name
> > > > ,
> > > > + lpi_constraints_table[i].min_
> > > > dsta
> > > > te,
> > > > + adev->power.state, state);
> > > Isn't this superfluous to be showing the state returned from
> > > acpi_device_get_power and
> > > also probing directly at the state? You can't just rely on the
> > > information you got
> > > back from apci_device_get_power?
> > They can be different as one is real power state and the other is
> > what
> > was set.
> > For example on Dell 9365 it shows
> >
> > [ 1924.393653] LPI: \_SB.PCI0.XHC required min power state 3,
> > current
> > power state 3, real power state 255
> >
> Isn't 255 ACPI_STATE_UNKNOWN? That makes it seem like it
> is a logic problem in acpi_device_get_power (or somewhere down the
> chain)
> doesn't it?
There is no _PSC for XHC device. So it will return unknown. This is an
optional object, so I think that dumping the status is fine, but
matching with output of acpi_device_get_power() as it relies on _PSC is
not correct for the constraint.
Thanks,
Srinivas
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > + if (adev->flags.power_manageable && adev-
> > > > >
> > > > > power.state <
> > > > + lpi_constraints_table[
> > > > i].m
> > > > in_dstate)
> > > > + pr_info("LPI: Constraint [%s] not
> > > > matched\n",
> > > > + lpi_constraints_table[i].name
> > > > );
> > > Similarly here, can't you just compare against &state instead?
> > >
> > The problem then the check will fail for XHCI on Dell 9365. So not
> > using "state".
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Srinivas
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static void acpi_sleep_run_lps0_dsm(unsigned int func)
> > > > {
> > > > union acpi_object *out_obj;
> > > > @@ -729,6 +886,9 @@ static int lps0_device_attach(struct
> > > > acpi_device *adev,
> > > > "_DSM function 0 evaluation
> > > > failed\n");
> > > > }
> > > > ACPI_FREE(out_obj);
> > > > +
> > > > + lpi_device_get_constraints();
> > > > +
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > @@ -773,6 +933,8 @@ static void acpi_freeze_wake(void)
> > > > */
> > > > if (acpi_sci_irq_valid() &&
> > > > !irqd_is_wakeup_armed(irq_get_irq_data(acpi_sci_ir
> > > > q)))
> > > > {
> > > > + if (pm_debug_messages_enabled())
> > > > + lpi_check_constraints();
> > > > pm_system_cancel_wakeup();
> > > > s2idle_wakeup = true;
> > > > }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.7.5
