e1000e: Add ADP_I219_LM17 to ME S0ix blacklist

[PATCH] e1000e: Add ADP_I219_LM17 to ME S0ix blacklist

Posted by Jiajia Liu 2 years, 8 months ago

I219 on HP EliteOne 840 All in One cannot work after s2idle resume
when the link speed is Gigabit, Wake-on-LAN is enabled and then set
the link down before suspend. No issue found when requesting driver
to configure S0ix. Add workround to let ADP_I219_LM17 use the dirver
configured S0ix.

Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216926
Signed-off-by: Jiajia Liu <liujia6264@gmail.com>
---

It's regarding the bug above, it looks it's causued by the ME S0ix.
And is there a method to make the ME S0ix path work?

 drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
index 04acd1a992fa..7ee759dbd09d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
@@ -6330,6 +6330,23 @@ static void e1000e_flush_lpic(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 	pm_runtime_put_sync(netdev->dev.parent);
 }
 
+static u16 me_s0ix_blacklist[] = {
+	E1000_DEV_ID_PCH_ADP_I219_LM17,
+	0
+};
+
+static bool e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(const struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
+{
+	u16 *list;
+
+	for (list = me_s0ix_blacklist; *list; list++) {
+		if (*list == adapter->pdev->device)
+			return true;
+	}
+
+	return false;
+}
+
 /* S0ix implementation */
 static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
 {
@@ -6337,6 +6354,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
 	u32 mac_data;
 	u16 phy_data;
 
+	if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
+		goto req_driver;
+
 	if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
 	    hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
 		/* Request ME configure the device for S0ix */
@@ -6346,6 +6366,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
 		trace_e1000e_trace_mac_register(mac_data);
 		ew32(H2ME, mac_data);
 	} else {
+req_driver:
 		/* Request driver configure the device to S0ix */
 		/* Disable the periodic inband message,
 		 * don't request PCIe clock in K1 page770_17[10:9] = 10b
@@ -6488,6 +6509,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
 	u16 phy_data;
 	u32 i = 0;
 
+	if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
+		goto req_driver;
+
 	if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
 	    hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
 		/* Keep the GPT clock enabled for CSME */
@@ -6523,6 +6547,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
 		else
 			e_dbg("DPG_EXIT_DONE cleared after %d msec\n", i * 10);
 	} else {
+req_driver:
 		/* Request driver unconfigure the device from S0ix */
 
 		/* Disable the Dynamic Power Gating in the MAC */
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH] e1000e: Add ADP_I219_LM17 to ME S0ix blacklist

Posted by Jacob Keller 2 years, 8 months ago


On 1/17/2023 2:26 AM, Jiajia Liu wrote:
> I219 on HP EliteOne 840 All in One cannot work after s2idle resume
> when the link speed is Gigabit, Wake-on-LAN is enabled and then set
> the link down before suspend. No issue found when requesting driver
> to configure S0ix. Add workround to let ADP_I219_LM17 use the dirver
> configured S0ix.
> 
> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216926
> Signed-off-by: Jiajia Liu <liujia6264@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
> It's regarding the bug above, it looks it's causued by the ME S0ix.
> And is there a method to make the ME S0ix path work?
> 

No idea. It does seem better to disable S0ix if it doesn't work properly
first though...

>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> index 04acd1a992fa..7ee759dbd09d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> @@ -6330,6 +6330,23 @@ static void e1000e_flush_lpic(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  	pm_runtime_put_sync(netdev->dev.parent);
>  }
>  
> +static u16 me_s0ix_blacklist[] = {
> +	E1000_DEV_ID_PCH_ADP_I219_LM17,
> +	0
> +};
> +
> +static bool e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(const struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> +{
> +	u16 *list;
> +
> +	for (list = me_s0ix_blacklist; *list; list++) {
> +		if (*list == adapter->pdev->device)
> +			return true;
> +	}
> +
> +	return false;
> +}

The name of this function seems odd..? "check_me"? It also seems like we
could just do a simple switch/case on the device ID or similar.

Maybe: "e1000e_device_supports_s0ix"?

> +
>  /* S0ix implementation */
>  static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>  {
> @@ -6337,6 +6354,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>  	u32 mac_data;
>  	u16 phy_data;
>  
> +	if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
> +		goto req_driver;
> +
>  	if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
>  	    hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
>  		/* Request ME configure the device for S0ix */


The related code also seems to already perform some set of mac checks
here...

> @@ -6346,6 +6366,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>  		trace_e1000e_trace_mac_register(mac_data);
>  		ew32(H2ME, mac_data);
>  	} else {
> +req_driver:>  		/* Request driver configure the device to S0ix */
>  		/* Disable the periodic inband message,
>  		 * don't request PCIe clock in K1 page770_17[10:9] = 10b
> @@ -6488,6 +6509,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>  	u16 phy_data;
>  	u32 i = 0;
>  
> +	if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
> +		goto req_driver;
> +

Why not just combine this check into the statement below rather than
adding a goto?

>  	if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
>  	    hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
>  		/* Keep the GPT clock enabled for CSME */
> @@ -6523,6 +6547,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>  		else
>  			e_dbg("DPG_EXIT_DONE cleared after %d msec\n", i * 10);
>  	} else {
> +req_driver:
>  		/* Request driver unconfigure the device from S0ix */
>  
>  		/* Disable the Dynamic Power Gating in the MAC */

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: Add ADP_I219_LM17 to ME S0ix blacklist

Posted by Neftin, Sasha 2 years, 7 months ago

On 1/17/2023 21:34, Jacob Keller wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/17/2023 2:26 AM, Jiajia Liu wrote:
>> I219 on HP EliteOne 840 All in One cannot work after s2idle resume
>> when the link speed is Gigabit, Wake-on-LAN is enabled and then set
>> the link down before suspend. No issue found when requesting driver
>> to configure S0ix. Add workround to let ADP_I219_LM17 use the dirver
>> configured S0ix.
>>
>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216926
>> Signed-off-by: Jiajia Liu <liujia6264@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>> It's regarding the bug above, it looks it's causued by the ME S0ix.
>> And is there a method to make the ME S0ix path work?
No. This is a fragile approach. ME must get the message from us 
(unconfigure the device from s0ix). Otherwise, ME will continue to 
access LAN resources and the controller could get stuck.
I see two ways:
1. you always can skip s0ix flow by priv_flag
2. Especially in this case (HP platform) - please, contact HP (what is 
the ME version on this system, and how was it released...). HP will open 
a ticket with Intel. (then we can involve the ME team)
>>
> 
> No idea. It does seem better to disable S0ix if it doesn't work properly
> first though...
> 
>>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>> index 04acd1a992fa..7ee759dbd09d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>> @@ -6330,6 +6330,23 @@ static void e1000e_flush_lpic(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>   	pm_runtime_put_sync(netdev->dev.parent);
>>   }
>>   
>> +static u16 me_s0ix_blacklist[] = {
>> +	E1000_DEV_ID_PCH_ADP_I219_LM17,
>> +	0
>> +};
>> +
>> +static bool e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(const struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>> +{
>> +	u16 *list;
>> +
>> +	for (list = me_s0ix_blacklist; *list; list++) {
>> +		if (*list == adapter->pdev->device)
>> +			return true;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return false;
>> +}
> 
> The name of this function seems odd..? "check_me"? It also seems like we
> could just do a simple switch/case on the device ID or similar.
> 
> Maybe: "e1000e_device_supports_s0ix"?
> 
>> +
>>   /* S0ix implementation */
>>   static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>   {
>> @@ -6337,6 +6354,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>   	u32 mac_data;
>>   	u16 phy_data;
>>   
>> +	if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
>> +		goto req_driver;
>> +
>>   	if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
>>   	    hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
>>   		/* Request ME configure the device for S0ix */
> 
> 
> The related code also seems to already perform some set of mac checks
> here...
> 
>> @@ -6346,6 +6366,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>   		trace_e1000e_trace_mac_register(mac_data);
>>   		ew32(H2ME, mac_data);
>>   	} else {
>> +req_driver:>  		/* Request driver configure the device to S0ix */
>>   		/* Disable the periodic inband message,
>>   		 * don't request PCIe clock in K1 page770_17[10:9] = 10b
>> @@ -6488,6 +6509,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>   	u16 phy_data;
>>   	u32 i = 0;
>>   
>> +	if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
>> +		goto req_driver;
>> +
> 
> Why not just combine this check into the statement below rather than
> adding a goto?
> 
>>   	if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
>>   	    hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
>>   		/* Keep the GPT clock enabled for CSME */
>> @@ -6523,6 +6547,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>   		else
>>   			e_dbg("DPG_EXIT_DONE cleared after %d msec\n", i * 10);
>>   	} else {
>> +req_driver:
>>   		/* Request driver unconfigure the device from S0ix */
>>   
>>   		/* Disable the Dynamic Power Gating in the MAC */
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-wired-lan mailing list
> Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
> https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: Add ADP_I219_LM17 to ME S0ix blacklist

Posted by Jia Liu 2 years, 7 months ago

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:20 PM Neftin, Sasha <sasha.neftin@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/17/2023 21:34, Jacob Keller wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/17/2023 2:26 AM, Jiajia Liu wrote:
> >> I219 on HP EliteOne 840 All in One cannot work after s2idle resume
> >> when the link speed is Gigabit, Wake-on-LAN is enabled and then set
> >> the link down before suspend. No issue found when requesting driver
> >> to configure S0ix. Add workround to let ADP_I219_LM17 use the dirver
> >> configured S0ix.
> >>
> >> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216926
> >> Signed-off-by: Jiajia Liu <liujia6264@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> It's regarding the bug above, it looks it's causued by the ME S0ix.
> >> And is there a method to make the ME S0ix path work?
> No. This is a fragile approach. ME must get the message from us
> (unconfigure the device from s0ix). Otherwise, ME will continue to
> access LAN resources and the controller could get stuck.
> I see two ways:
> 1. you always can skip s0ix flow by priv_flag
> 2. Especially in this case (HP platform) - please, contact HP (what is
> the ME version on this system, and how was it released...). HP will open
> a ticket with Intel. (then we can involve the ME team)

HP released BIOS including ME firmware on their website HP.com at
https://support.hp.com/my-en/drivers/selfservice/hp-eliteone-840-23.8-inch-g9-all-in-one-desktop-pc/2101132389.
There is upgrade interface on the BIOS setup menu which can connect
HP.com and upgrade to newer BIOS.

The initial ME version was v16.0.15.1735 from BIOS 02.03.04.
Then I upgraded to the latest one v16.1.25.1932v3 from BIOS 02.06.01
released on Nov 28, 2022. Both of them can produce this issue.

I have only one setup. Is it possible to try on your system which has the
same I219-LM to see if it's platform specific or not?

> >>
> >
> > No idea. It does seem better to disable S0ix if it doesn't work properly
> > first though...
> >
> >>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> >> index 04acd1a992fa..7ee759dbd09d 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> >> @@ -6330,6 +6330,23 @@ static void e1000e_flush_lpic(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >>      pm_runtime_put_sync(netdev->dev.parent);
> >>   }
> >>
> >> +static u16 me_s0ix_blacklist[] = {
> >> +    E1000_DEV_ID_PCH_ADP_I219_LM17,
> >> +    0
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static bool e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(const struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> >> +{
> >> +    u16 *list;
> >> +
> >> +    for (list = me_s0ix_blacklist; *list; list++) {
> >> +            if (*list == adapter->pdev->device)
> >> +                    return true;
> >> +    }
> >> +
> >> +    return false;
> >> +}
> >
> > The name of this function seems odd..? "check_me"? It also seems like we
> > could just do a simple switch/case on the device ID or similar.
> >
> > Maybe: "e1000e_device_supports_s0ix"?
> >
> >> +
> >>   /* S0ix implementation */
> >>   static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> >>   {
> >> @@ -6337,6 +6354,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> >>      u32 mac_data;
> >>      u16 phy_data;
> >>
> >> +    if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
> >> +            goto req_driver;
> >> +
> >>      if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
> >>          hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
> >>              /* Request ME configure the device for S0ix */
> >
> >
> > The related code also seems to already perform some set of mac checks
> > here...
> >
> >> @@ -6346,6 +6366,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> >>              trace_e1000e_trace_mac_register(mac_data);
> >>              ew32(H2ME, mac_data);
> >>      } else {
> >> +req_driver:>                /* Request driver configure the device to S0ix */
> >>              /* Disable the periodic inband message,
> >>               * don't request PCIe clock in K1 page770_17[10:9] = 10b
> >> @@ -6488,6 +6509,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> >>      u16 phy_data;
> >>      u32 i = 0;
> >>
> >> +    if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
> >> +            goto req_driver;
> >> +
> >
> > Why not just combine this check into the statement below rather than
> > adding a goto?
> >
> >>      if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
> >>          hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
> >>              /* Keep the GPT clock enabled for CSME */
> >> @@ -6523,6 +6547,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> >>              else
> >>                      e_dbg("DPG_EXIT_DONE cleared after %d msec\n", i * 10);
> >>      } else {
> >> +req_driver:
> >>              /* Request driver unconfigure the device from S0ix */
> >>
> >>              /* Disable the Dynamic Power Gating in the MAC */
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-wired-lan mailing list
> > Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
> > https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
>

Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] e1000e: Add ADP_I219_LM17 to ME S0ix blacklist

Posted by Neftin, Sasha 2 years, 7 months ago

On 1/18/2023 11:08, Jia Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:20 PM Neftin, Sasha <sasha.neftin@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/17/2023 21:34, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/17/2023 2:26 AM, Jiajia Liu wrote:
>>>> I219 on HP EliteOne 840 All in One cannot work after s2idle resume
>>>> when the link speed is Gigabit, Wake-on-LAN is enabled and then set
>>>> the link down before suspend. No issue found when requesting driver
>>>> to configure S0ix. Add workround to let ADP_I219_LM17 use the dirver
>>>> configured S0ix.
>>>>
>>>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216926
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiajia Liu <liujia6264@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> It's regarding the bug above, it looks it's causued by the ME S0ix.
>>>> And is there a method to make the ME S0ix path work?
>> No. This is a fragile approach. ME must get the message from us
>> (unconfigure the device from s0ix). Otherwise, ME will continue to
>> access LAN resources and the controller could get stuck.
>> I see two ways:
>> 1. you always can skip s0ix flow by priv_flag
>> 2. Especially in this case (HP platform) - please, contact HP (what is
>> the ME version on this system, and how was it released...). HP will open
>> a ticket with Intel. (then we can involve the ME team)
> 
> HP released BIOS including ME firmware on their website HP.com at
> https://support.hp.com/my-en/drivers/selfservice/hp-eliteone-840-23.8-inch-g9-all-in-one-desktop-pc/2101132389.
> There is upgrade interface on the BIOS setup menu which can connect
> HP.com and upgrade to newer BIOS.
> 
> The initial ME version was v16.0.15.1735 from BIOS 02.03.04.
> Then I upgraded to the latest one v16.1.25.1932v3 from BIOS 02.06.01
> released on Nov 28, 2022. Both of them can produce this issue.
> 
> I have only one setup. Is it possible to try on your system which has the
> same I219-LM to see if it's platform specific or not?
Yes, s0ix flows works on our platforms.
> 
>>>>
>>>
>>> No idea. It does seem better to disable S0ix if it doesn't work properly
>>> first though...
>>>
>>>>    drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>>>> index 04acd1a992fa..7ee759dbd09d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
>>>> @@ -6330,6 +6330,23 @@ static void e1000e_flush_lpic(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>>>       pm_runtime_put_sync(netdev->dev.parent);
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> +static u16 me_s0ix_blacklist[] = {
>>>> +    E1000_DEV_ID_PCH_ADP_I219_LM17,
>>>> +    0
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static bool e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(const struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    u16 *list;
>>>> +
>>>> +    for (list = me_s0ix_blacklist; *list; list++) {
>>>> +            if (*list == adapter->pdev->device)
>>>> +                    return true;
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    return false;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> The name of this function seems odd..? "check_me"? It also seems like we
>>> could just do a simple switch/case on the device ID or similar.
>>>
>>> Maybe: "e1000e_device_supports_s0ix"?
>>>
>>>> +
>>>>    /* S0ix implementation */
>>>>    static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>>>    {
>>>> @@ -6337,6 +6354,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>>>       u32 mac_data;
>>>>       u16 phy_data;
>>>>
>>>> +    if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
>>>> +            goto req_driver;
>>>> +
>>>>       if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
>>>>           hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
>>>>               /* Request ME configure the device for S0ix */
>>>
>>>
>>> The related code also seems to already perform some set of mac checks
>>> here...
>>>
>>>> @@ -6346,6 +6366,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_entry_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>>>               trace_e1000e_trace_mac_register(mac_data);
>>>>               ew32(H2ME, mac_data);
>>>>       } else {
>>>> +req_driver:>                /* Request driver configure the device to S0ix */
>>>>               /* Disable the periodic inband message,
>>>>                * don't request PCIe clock in K1 page770_17[10:9] = 10b
>>>> @@ -6488,6 +6509,9 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>>>       u16 phy_data;
>>>>       u32 i = 0;
>>>>
>>>> +    if (e1000e_check_me_s0ix_blacklist(adapter))
>>>> +            goto req_driver;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Why not just combine this check into the statement below rather than
>>> adding a goto?
>>>
>>>>       if (er32(FWSM) & E1000_ICH_FWSM_FW_VALID &&
>>>>           hw->mac.type >= e1000_pch_adp) {
>>>>               /* Keep the GPT clock enabled for CSME */
>>>> @@ -6523,6 +6547,7 @@ static void e1000e_s0ix_exit_flow(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
>>>>               else
>>>>                       e_dbg("DPG_EXIT_DONE cleared after %d msec\n", i * 10);
>>>>       } else {
>>>> +req_driver:
>>>>               /* Request driver unconfigure the device from S0ix */
>>>>
>>>>               /* Disable the Dynamic Power Gating in the MAC */
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Intel-wired-lan mailing list
>>> Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
>>> https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan
>>