See inline comment, unless I'm somehow mistaken, register reading is wrong.

Also, what is the point of exposing PM_CFG? It does not seem to contain useful data with respect to S0ix, and in general not useful data at all as far as the OS is concerned. PM_STS is not even documented, and it's apparently used in Linux just to acknowledge messages sent to MTPMC (which we don't do), so I'd just remove it.

Finally, LTR_IGNORE is not documented either. It seems Linux only touches some bit there. It might be that some of the bits in there are of interest to know which S0ix are available, but am not sure. Do you have any documentation or pointers for that?

for LTR_IGNORE.. each bit maps to an IP block (SPT has 18: SPA, SPB, SATA, ect).
A clear bit means that agent is asserting LTR requirements that can block S0ix entry.
When slp_s0_residency stops incrementing, the register tells you which device is in charge.

Linux exposes the same data in debugfs via pmc_core_ltr_show() for exactly this reason. I will add a comment in the source with the SPT bit map.

PS: I have other generations's support already tested. I will submit additional diffs once this driver land. (extra code used there was removed from this diff)

In D54881#1294250, @guest-seuros wrote:

rename to intelpmc for consistency with hwpmc/intelspi

I'd like moving into the easier-to-read direction. Could you please rename it back to intel_pmc? That's also more consistent with acpi_spmc(4).

In D54881#1294254, @guest-seuros wrote:

for LTR_IGNORE.. each bit maps to an IP block (SPT has 18: SPA, SPB, SATA, ect).
A clear bit means that agent is asserting LTR requirements that can block S0ix entry.

From my reading of Linux code, not exactly. It rather means that the corresponding IP *can* block S0ix entry. Do you confirm?

When slp_s0_residency stops incrementing, the register tells you which device is in charge.

From my reading of Linux code, it doesn't do that. It's rather that, if you don't get into S0ix, you can try to ignore IPs that would prevent from doing that.

So it seems to me that exposing LTR_IGNORE doesn't really make sense without write support (you'll have to change the corresponding sysctl).

PS: I have other generations's support already tested. I will submit additional diffs once this driver land. (extra code used there was removed from this diff)

I'm eager to see that, but first of all, let's make sure this base part is completely correct and usable.

Sorry for the long delay before coming back to this. I'm now quite in a hurry to get this in, so that I can work on some other CPU/chipset generation. A comment a while ago indicated that you had more generations in stock, let's also examine that just after this one is done. I can help polishing and committing them if you do not have time to handle them.

A number of earlier inline comments, which for some reason were not added to the then current diff (probable pilot error on my side), have not been handled. I've added them back (except the mask one, where apparently I was wrong).

Please also see the new inline comments.

I do not really understand why you added "firmware access lock" detection. To my knowledge, after consulting the doc, there is no real lock mechanism for the PMC memory map, and no global firmware mechanism to read lock (there is the possibility for the BIOS to block reading 2 8-byte ranges, but this is designed to prevent reading password and other system sensitive info, and arguably it would be a bug if this used to block reading SLP_S0_RES or anything else exposed by the PMC). And there's nothing similar in Linux code either (contrary to what you stated in comment #1276647; AI hallucination?). Do you have any concrete evidence that this mechanism is really needed? Barring that, I'd just drop it.

Hopefully, after this new round, we will be there, or almost.

I'd also advise to disclose the AI used (for anything) with an "Assisted by:" tag.

You forgot to put this in the release notes, and omitted that I worked with you on this in the commit log. Both of these make my life harder. Please do not do this.

i wrote that the driver is still not complete there are many other generations to work on like D59596. < and this is not the last one.

A release note doesn't break the build. We can even add it in a separate commit.

Alternatively, i will refrain from writing any man page and you handle it. wdyt ?

In D54881#1368942, @seuros wrote:

i wrote that the driver is still not complete there are many other generations to work on like D59596. < and this is not the last one.

A release note doesn't break the build. We can even add it in a separate commit.

Honestly, in terms of things that can go wrong, breaking the build is not that big of a deal.
You rushed and made a mistake. I am pointing it out so that you can take a little more time.
Please add it as you said. Had you done as I asked it would be a lot less work for you and cleaner, and I would not have to be here arguing with you about it.

Alternatively, i will refrain from writing any man page and you handle it. wdyt ?

I think this is a bit rude actually. To me this is reading like you don't want to do it anymore because I asked you to fix a few details, and even showed you how, and you wanted to rush or something. You are writing perfectly fine doc, I just gave you some small editorial corrections so that the doc follows project standards. I think if you do not want to fix these small things, you definitely do not want to spend the much greater amount of time to teach me what your driver is doing so that I can write it for you. Which is also a giant waste of my time honestly. All of the corrections I told you on this review, I told you on previous reviews. And, I wrote them in style guides, and I told you where they were. So, this is all a waste of time, and your proposal sounds like you think I am wasting your time, so you want to waste even more time. It makes me a bit sad.

Please add it as you said. Had you done as I asked it would be a lot less work for you and cleaner, and I would not have to be here arguing with you about it.

I will add it in the other diff.

I think this is a bit rude actually. To me this is reading like you don't want to do it anymore because I asked you to fix a few details, and even showed you how, and you wanted to rush or something. You are writing perfectly fine doc, I just gave you some small editorial corrections so that the doc follows project standards. I think if you do not want to fix these small things, you definitely do not want to spend the much greater amount of time to teach me what your driver is doing so that I can write it for you. Which is also a giant waste of my time honestly. All of the corrections I told you on this review, I told you on previous reviews. And, I wrote them in style guides, and I told you where they were. So, this is all a waste of time, and your proposal sounds like you think I am wasting your time, so you want to waste even more time. It makes me a bit sad.

That was not a statement, some people like to do things on their own. I myself push changes on people PRs in various of the project i maintain, especially when i want them to land exactly like i want.
If you want to arc patch locally , edit it and update it, i'm totally fine with it.

the apple_bce driver shipped without a manpage, and you and ngie authored it. So, i though that maybe i'm stepping on your tasks.
And no, I will spend time to explain you the driver, even give you ssh access or do video call with you if needed so we ship documentation correctly.
My issue is that this driver is super old Jan 26 2026 , i revisited so many time. Also there are 12 generations of on top.. which mean that the narrative and man page is going to change multiple time. The end users are going to read the last version, not the history.
Also for me writing man pages is harder than the driver itself, not because can't write. But because i don't know when to stop explaining things.
So my flow is that i copy a similar man page and edit it.

So i apologies if that sounded like an attack..

Anyway, this driver works continue on D59596, and there will be more. I will resume it later.

In D54881#1368936, @ziaee wrote:

You forgot to put this in the release notes, and omitted that I worked with you on this in the commit log. Both of these make my life harder. Please do not do this.

@ziaee,

I'd like to point out first and foremost that the form of this message is counter-productive and for this reason alone should have been avoided. I'm almost certain it would have come across differently if you had said something like: "Release notes are missing, could you please add them? Also, please mention in future commit logs that I reviewed the manual page.". Same for "Had you done as I asked it would be a lot less work for you and cleaner, and I would not have to be here arguing with you about it.".

Additionally, personally, I find that the level of animosity conveyed is a bit out of proportion with the actual lapses here. This is my feeling, I'm not in your shoes, I certainly do not have the same context as you and YMMV, but let me explain a bit my point of view as I think it should resonate with you for the most part.

Trying to imagine myself in the shoes of Abdelkader (coming back to you in a moment), this revision was opened in January, was first reviewed almost immediately, but then there was no progress until April, where I did a more thorough review and found an important problem (the driver simply could not work); this was completed by another review in May, and then there was again a gap on my side until beginning of September. In general, and by contrast, Abdelkader responded quite swiftly to all reviews, and also had other work based on this one, which means any change here causes additional work since his stack has to be rebased. So, when I finally accepted the changes, he was probably relieved and eager to commit it, and then came your late intervention, with good points. Abdelkader seemed initially reluctant, and I guess this was because of the history, because the changes requested themselves were in reality tiny, and only the last one (changing the heading before the list of supported PMCs) could percolate through his stack (and even not that far I'd guess). So, you were right about asking for the changes, but also took his reluctance personally whereas it doesn't seem to me that it was because of you personally (again, only my evaluation), and then started to escalate, which could be viewed as heavy and unfair.

Let me add also that we do not necessarily add release notes right away when something new appears, not even manual pages. Of course, you could tell me that this is because of negligence, and you would probably be right most of the time, but I think there are also "legitimate" reasons to prioritize them down, such as when something is under continuous development, with a first version appearing in the tree and then multiple iterations happening on it with significant changes in functionality/support. For example, I (and ShengYi) have been "guilty" of that for the evolution of hwpstate_amd(4) to support CPPC: There's still no manual page text to describe it, and although that's certainly not ideal, it's not a big deal either because the functionality is only in main/-CURRENT and has not been backported, because the sysctl controls are thoroughly documented so it's at least usable even for people not too versed in the topic, and because there's still heavy work on-going behind the scenes on the hwpstate_*(4) drivers (actually, in this precise case, the old developers of hwpstate_amd(4) could also be seen as guilty since there did not write a manual page in 15+ years for the P-state control part, which is why there's not even a manual page to look at still to this day, but again that's probably not a huge deal since that support integrates completely into cpufreq(4), which *has* a manual page). The aim here is just to save on developer *but also* doc reviewer time when we know that a lot of further changes are going to happen. The participating time of all those involved in FreeBSD is precious, for a lot of different reasons, and everybody should keep that in mind at all times, sometimes taking it on themselves to avoid frictions as much as possible (but then, nobody's perfect, mistakes happen, some do a lot of efforts and others do not do enough, and so on and so forth).

From your point of view, I can understand how it feels when trying to move documentation forward and these efforts being met with a lot of resistance and frictions (although I hope that at least a few of them produced actual value). You also pointed out some similar corrections in other reviews with Abdelkader, and are getting tired over that. You're actually saying "all corrections" which looks a bit like an overstatement (I have not personally checked) and possibly is a consequence of you being fed up with repeating the same things in lots of reviews with which Abdelkader has nothing to do. In this context, it's not hard to understand that you can perceive being reluctant to do some small corrections as a low appreciation for the work you are doing. So let me say that we are actually quite blessed that you're actively curating our manual pages (and perhaps other documentation, for all I know), this work is really important to improve our adoption in various audiences. And we are blessed to have Abdelkader too, with that attitude towards hardware support among others. Both code and documentation are important. That said, sometimes, it will happen that code is done first and documentation done later, for lots of reasons (e.g., in addition to the reasons developed above, some developers are terrible writers, etc.) without implying that documentation is less important, or treated as a second-class (or third-class, or worse) citizen. I don't dispute it probably is not treated as seriously as it should in too many cases, it's just I don't think this was the case here, despite some appearances, hence my assessment on your animosity.

There is no spite or resentment behind my frustrated comment, please do not read into it too deeply. I did take it personally, but I do not agree there was anything escalatory about communicating that, especially after being directly asked what I think. I did not insult anyone, because I do not have any insults to issue. My statement was just, direct. It does make my life harder, and I asked please do not do this. My concern with the doc, as you know from doing release notes, is not that it will take more time later, it is that it will never get done. If it is done on time, it takes everyone an extra 10 minutes. If it is done later, it takes many man hours, starting with a frustrated user report (and who knows how many frustrated users did not bother to file the bug first), many hours of work to figure out what is missing, and so on. Archaeological docs is also the most unglamorous work that could never feed a family, and the damage to our reputation is done when things slip through the cracks and users find them. Similarly with release notes. We can not manually read through the commit log and parse everything that has happened to write release notes, and AI is not at that stage either. If the commit is marked appropriately we can do an acceptable job with only a few hours of work. If not, it takes days, which may or may not happen depending on availability of our teammates.

In D54881#1372525, @ziaee wrote:

There is no spite or resentment behind my frustrated comment, please do not read into it too deeply.

Ok, relieved to read that.

I did take it personally, but I do not agree there was anything escalatory about communicating that, especially after being directly asked what I think.

Not questioning that part, I was really talking about earlier reactions.

My concern with the doc, as you know from doing release notes, is not that it will take more time later, it is that it will never get done.

I completely agree in general (and, as you know, I experienced it first hand), but again, I don't think it will be the case here. And I'll guarantee that myself as a last resort.

If the commit is marked appropriately we can do an acceptable job with only a few hours of work. If not, it takes days, which may or may not happen depending on availability of our teammates.

Sure, that commit should have been marked. But we'll have other opportunities, i.e., follow-up commits, to correct that, and anyway we'll update RELNOTES after these follow-ups.