On Mon, 19 May 2025, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:I just want to know what are disadvantages/side effects having this
If a driver wants to enable ASPM back after disabling ASPM for some
usecase, it is not being enabled properly because of the aspm_disable
flag is not getting cleared. This flag is being properly when aspm
is controlled by sysfs.
This sentence has broken grammar/is missing something?
aspm -> ASPM
Signed-off-by: Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <krishna.chundru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
index 94324fc0d3e650cd3ca2c0bb8c1895ca7e647b9d..0f858ef86111b43328bc7db01e6493ce67178458 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
@@ -1453,6 +1453,7 @@ static int __pci_enable_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, int state, bool locked)
down_read(&pci_bus_sem);
mutex_lock(&aspm_lock);
link->aspm_default = pci_calc_aspm_enable_mask(state);
+ link->aspm_disable &= ~state;
pcie_config_aspm_link(link, policy_to_aspm_state(link));
link->clkpm_default = (state & PCIE_LINK_STATE_CLKPM) ? 1 : 0;
I disagree with this change.
The problem currently with ASPM driver is that pci_disable_link_state()
and pci_enable_link_state() are not symmetric pairs despite their
misleading names. pci_enable_link_state() should be renamed to
pci_set_default_link_state() and if the symmetric pair is needed for
pci_disable_link_state(), it would have to be added separately.
I've some (rotting) patches which try to do that, in case you want to try
to solve this inconsistency in the ASPM driver (I can send them to you)?