On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 22:07 +0000, Mario.Limonciello@dell.com wrote:

quoted

[...]

quoted

+
+		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 

quoted

+
+		if (adev->flags.power_manageable && adev-

quoted

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

quoted

+	}
+}
+
 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_irq)))
{
+		if (pm_debug_messages_enabled())
+			lpi_check_constraints();
 		pm_system_cancel_wakeup();
 		s2idle_wakeup = true;
 	}
--
2.7.5