[PATCH v4 06/11] PCI/ASPM: Clear aspm_disable as part of __pci_enable_link_state()

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
> On 7/11/2025 2:51 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2025, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 06:01:22PM GMT, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
> > > > On 7/9/2025 2:40 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

> > > > > 1) Renames pci_enable_link_state() to pci_set_default_link_state()
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1b) If pci_enable_link_state() is still needed after that, a new
> > > > > function
> > > > > is added to symmetrically pair with pci_disable_link_state().
> > > > > 
> > > > > or alternatively,
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2) Changelog justifies very clearly why this change is okay with the
> > > > > existing callers. (And obviously the function comment should be
> > > > > altered to
> > > > > match the functionality in that case too).
> > > > > 
> > > > > If approach 2 is chosen, it should be very carefully reviewed when it
> > > > > comes to the callers.
> > > > > 
> > > > I am in favor of approach 2 which you suggested, but lets wait for other
> > > > reviewers feedback on this. Based up on the response i will make
> > > > necessary changes in v5.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I would go for (1). It is always going to be a problem to change a legacy
> > > API
> > > like this. We might end up causing regressions. So it is safe to rename to
> > > reflect the purpose and try to come up with a new API that does what you
> > > want.
> > > If callers want to migrate to the new API, they can also do it in the
> > > future.
> > 
> > That's my recommendation as well.
> I will take this as learning, we will go with approach (1) as both of
> you are having valid points.
> 
> llpo,
> In the previous patch you said you have some patches on can you send me
> those or shall I proceed with patches from myside.

Sure, attached 3 patches.

Those were based on 6.11 and I've booted them along with my ASPM rework 
series (refactoring custom ASPM code in drivers to use the ASPM driver 
instaed). I quickly checked aspm.c fixes after that point and nothing 
seemed to require adaptations AFAICT.

-- 
 i.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-PCI-ASPM-Rename-pci_enable_link_state-to-pci_set_def.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 7342 bytes
Desc: 
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath11k/attachments/20250711/fa5f181b/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-PCI-ASPM-Improve-pci_set_default_link_state-_locked-.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 3769 bytes
Desc: 
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath11k/attachments/20250711/fa5f181b/attachment-0004.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0003-PCI-ASPM-Add-pci_enable_link_state.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 3428 bytes
Desc: 
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath11k/attachments/20250711/fa5f181b/attachment-0005.bin>