Re: [PATCH] pci/hotplug: work-around for missing _RMV on HP ZBook G2

[Jarod Wilson]

On 5/18/2015 7:06 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, May 18, 2015 04:45:28 PM Jarod Wilson wrote:
...
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 03:33:58PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > > > > > > > The HP ZBook 15 and 17 Mobile Workstations, generation 2, up to and
> > > > > > > > including at least BIOS revision 01.07, do not have an ACPI _RMV
> > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > associated with their expresscard slots, so acpi-based
> > > > > > > > hotplug-capable
> > > > > > > > slot detection fails. If we fall back to pcie-based detection, the
> > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > work just fine
...
> > Ah, I forgot some additional details. pciehp_probe() in
> > drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_core.c fails on the
> > pciehp_acpi_slot_detection_check() call for the expresscard slot, which
> > is why the base pciehp doesn't bind. DEVICE_ACPI_HANDLE(&dev->dev) in
> > the slot detection check is winding up with a NULL acpi device.
>
> So IMO the bug is that select_detection_mode() assumes that ACPI should be
> used as the PCIe hotplug detection method if it has found at least one
> device that looks like an "ACPI hotplug slot" (Thuderbolt breaks that "logic").
>
> To be honest, I'm not sure why we need the pciehp_acpi_slot_detection_check()
> in pciehp_probe() at all.  It doesn't add any value as far as I can say.
>
> If pciehp_probe() is called at all, we have registered a PCIe port service
> and if this is a "hotplug" service, we wouldn't have registered it if the
> _OSC handshake had not given us contol over native hotplug.
>
> So I wonder if the patch below makes any difference.

Yeah, that also works, for the most part. You still get spew from 
pciehp_acpi_slot_detection_init() saying "Using ACPI for slot 
detection.", but in re-reading pciehp_acpi.c in its entirety... I can't 
see anything productive that it actually does. I'm of the mind that the 
entire file should just be nuked, the path from pciehp_core.c that your 
patch alters was the only one that called 
pciehp_acpi_slot_detection_check(), and everything else is basically the 
dummy probe and fluff, nothing meaningful actually happens. I can whip 
up a follow-up patch that neuters that file entirely in the morning. At 
the very least, the "Using ACPI" bit needs to be beaten into submission, 
since its not going to be accurate.

--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@xxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/