On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 09:02:38AM GMT, David Box wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 06:04:50PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 12:54:20PM -0700, David Box wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 03:43:45PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 01:35:22PM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > > Synthetic PCIe hierarchies, such as those created by Intel VMD, are not
> > > > > enumerated by firmware and do not receive BIOS-provided ASPM or CLKPM
> > > > > defaults. Devices in such domains may therefore run without the intended
> > > > > power management.
> > > > >
> > > > > Add a host-bridge mechanism that lets controller drivers supply their own
> > > > > defaults. A new aspm_default_link_state field in struct pci_host_bridge is
> > > > > set via pci_host_set_default_pcie_link_state(). During link initialization,
> > > > > if this field is non-zero, ASPM and CLKPM defaults come from it instead of
> > > > > BIOS.
> > > > >
> > > > > This enables drivers like VMD to align link power management with platform
> > > > > expectations and avoids embedding controller-specific quirks in ASPM core
> > > > > logic.
> > > >
> > > > I think this kind of sidesteps the real issue. Drivers for host
> > > > controllers or PCI devices should tell us about *broken* things, but
> > > > not about things advertised by the hardware and available for use.
> > >
> > > I agree with the principle. The intent isn’t for VMD (or any controller) to
> > > override valid platform policy. It’s to handle synthetic domains where the
> > > platform doesn’t provide any policy path (no effective _OSC/FADT for the child
> > > hierarchy). In those cases, the controller is the only agent that knows the
> > > topology and can supply sane defaults.
> > >
> > > I’m happy to tighten the patch to explicitly cover synthetic domains only.
> > > Instead of an API, we could have a boolean flag 'aspm_synthetic_domain'. When
> > > set by the controller, we can do:
> > >
> > > if (host_bridge->aspm_synthetic_domain)
> > > link->aspm_default = PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL;
> > >
> > > This at least addresses your concern about policy decision, leaving it to the
> > > core to determine how these domains are handled rather than an ABI that lets
> > > domains set policy.
> > >
> > > > The only documented policy controls I'm aware of for ASPM are:
> > > >
> > > > - FADT "PCIe ASPM Controls" bit ("if set, OS must not enable ASPM
> > > > control on this platform")
> > > >
> > > > - _OSC negotiation for control of the PCIe Capability (OS is only
> > > > allowed to write PCI_EXP_LNKCTL if platform has granted control to
> > > > the OS)
> > > >
> > > > I think what we *should* be doing is enabling ASPM when it's
> > > > advertised, subject to those platform policy controls and user choices
> > > > like CONFIG_PCIEASPM_PERFORMANCE/POWERSAVE/etc and sysfs attributes.
> > > >
> > > > So basically I think link->aspm_default should be PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL
> > > > without drivers doing anything at all. Maybe we have to carve out
> > > > exceptions, e.g., "VMD hierarchies are exempt from _OSC," or "devices
> > > > on x86 systems before 2026 can't enable more ASPM than BIOS did," or
> > > > whatever. Is there any baby step we can make in that direction?
> > > >
> > > > This feels a little scary, so feel free to convince me it can't be
> > > > done :)
> > >
> > > I understand your direction of enabling all advertised states by
> > > default (subject to FADT/_OSC and user settings). To explore that,
> > > I’ll send an RFC in parallel with this patch that proposes a baby
> > > step, e.g. add instrumentation so we can see where BIOS left
> > > capabilities unused, and make it opt-in via a boot param so we can
> > > evaluate impact safely.
> >
> > The instrumentation, absolutely. We need something about what was
> > already enabled and when we change things.
> >
> > > So this series will handle the VMD gap directly, and the RFC can
> > > kick off the wider discussion about defaults on ACPI-managed hosts.
> > > Does that sound like a reasonable approach and split?
> >
> > I don't really want a parallel approach because I don't think it would
> > ever converge again. BUT I think you're still OK for VMD, because I
> > think the default should be PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL, and when we carve out
> > the exceptions that would not be in vmd.c, and it's easy to say that
> > there's no exception for VMD.
>
> While I agree this is a better overall direction, it still won’t cover VMD in
> the “FADT disallows OS ASPM control” case. VMD (and others) are already using
> pci_enable_link_state() to set PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL. But that doesn’t apply when
> aspm_disabled = 1, which is the primary issue this patch addresses — moving away
> from a runtime control setting to init-time and allowing policy to be set even
> when aspm_disabled = 1.
>
> I want to be clear that this is needed because VMD is NOT fully ACPI-compliant.
> There is AML code, but it’s deliberately obfuscated to prevent the OS from
> enumerating the devices natively [1]. VMD was designed to give the driver
> complete control over the domain configuration, and that includes power
> management settings.
>
> So I can send a patch to make the default PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL, but I would still
> need a follow-on in that series that does something like:
>
> if (host_bridge->synthetic_domain)
> link->aspm_default = PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL;
>
>
> That carve-out is still required, because without it synthetic domains like VMD
> would inherit invalid or nonexistent BIOS defaults. The key difference is that
> only vmd.c would set itself as synthetic_domain; ASPM core still decides what
> policy applies.
>
Both VMD and the non-ACPI host bridge controllers are mostly same functionality
wise, so I don't think the 'synthetic_domain' property makes sense.
IMO, it is better to go with the API introduced in this patch for VMD as it
clearly tells us the host bridge driver is overriding for a purpose and I can
set PCIE_LINK_STATE_ALL for DT based platforms separately.
- Mani
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
