Message ID | 20220919155916.1044219-1-rrangel@chromium.org |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | acpi: i2c: Use SharedAndWake and ExclusiveAndWake to enable wake irq | expand |
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 5:59 PM Raul E Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org> wrote: > > Today, i2c drivers are making the assumption that their IRQs can also > be used as wake IRQs. This isn't always the case and it can lead to > spurious wakes. This has recently started to affect AMD Chromebooks. > With the introduction of > d62bd5ce12d7 ("pinctrl: amd: Implement irq_set_wake"), the AMD GPIO > controller gained the capability to set the wake bit on each GPIO. The > ACPI specification defines two ways to inform the system if a device is > wake capable: > 1) The _PRW object defines the GPE that can be used to wake the system. > 2) Setting ExclusiveAndWake or SharedAndWake in the _CRS GpioInt. > > Currently only the first method is supported. The i2c drivers don't have > any indication that the IRQ is wake capable, so they guess. This causes > spurious interrupts, for example: > * We have an ACPI HID device that has `_PR0` and `_PR3`. It doesn't have > `_PRW` or `ExclusiveAndWake` so that means the device can't wake the > system. > * The IRQ line is active level low for this device and is pulled up by > the power resource defined in `_PR0`/`_PR3`. > * The i2c driver will (incorrectly) arm the GPIO for wake by calling > `enable_irq_wake` as part of its suspend hook. > * ACPI will power down the device since it doesn't have a wake GPE > associated with it. > * When the device is powered down, the IRQ line will drop, and it will > trigger a wake event. > > See the following debug log: > [ 42.335804] PM: Suspending system (s2idle) > [ 42.340186] amd_gpio AMD0030:00: RX: Setting wake for pin 89 to enable > [ 42.467736] power-0416 __acpi_power_off : Power resource [PR00] turned off > [ 42.467739] device_pm-0280 device_set_power : Device [H05D] transitioned to D3cold > [ 42.475210] PM: pm_system_irq_wakeup: 11 triggered pinctrl_amd > [ 42.535293] PM: Wakeup unrelated to ACPI SCI > [ 42.535294] PM: resume from suspend-to-idle > > In order to fix this, we need to take into account the wake capable bit > defined on the Interrupt/GpioInt. This is accomplished by: > * Migrating some of the i2c drivers over to using the PM subsystem to > manage the wake IRQ. > * Expose the wake_capable bit from the ACPI Interrupt/GpioInt resource > to the i2c core. > * Use the wake_capable bit in the i2c core to call > `dev_pm_set_wake_irq`. This reuses the existing device tree flow. > * Make the i2c drivers stop calling `dev_pm_set_wake_irq` since it's now > handled by the i2c core. > * Make the ACPI device PM system aware of the wake_irq. This is > necessary so the device doesn't incorrectly get powered down when a > wake_irq is enabled. > > I've tested this code with various combinations of having _PRW, > ExclusiveAndWake and power resources all defined or not defined, but it > would be great if others could test this out on their hardware. > > I'm sure this will surface some devices where the IRQs were not > correctly marked as wake capable. Ideally the firmware can be fixed, but > if not we can work around this in the kernel by providing a board > specific `struct i2c_board_info` with the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag set. > See `chromeos_laptop.c` for an example of matching DMI properties and > setting the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` override. > > Thanks, > Raul > > Changes in v4: > - Added Reviewed-by > - Reformatted with 96 char limit > - Removed unnecessary !! > - Removed unrelated white space change > - Renamed i2c_acpi_add_resource to i2c_acpi_add_irq_resource > - Expanded logic in i2c_acpi_add_i2c_resource to make it easier to read > > Changes in v3: > - Kept `acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get_by` unchanged to avoid having to touch > unrelated drivers. > - Converted wake_capable parameter to bool. > - Fixed bad indent > - Convert wake_capable to bool > - Only update wake_capable pointer once > - Move wake_capable local into local block > > Changes in v2: > - Added elants_i2c to series > - Added raydium_ts_i2c to series > - Fixed call site in mlxbf_gige_probe > - Added ability to extract wake bit from Interrupt/IRQ resources > - Look at wake_cabple bit for IRQ/Interrupt resources > - I chose not to keep the legacy code around since systems without DT or ACPI should be rare. > > Raul E Rangel (13): > HID: i2c-hid: Use PM subsystem to manage wake irq > Input: elan_i2c - Use PM subsystem to manage wake irq > Input: elants_i2c - Use PM subsystem to manage wake irq > Input: raydium_ts_i2c - Use PM subsystem to manage wake irq > gpiolib: acpi: Add wake_capable variants of acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get > ACPI: resources: Add wake_capable parameter to acpi_dev_irq_flags > i2c: acpi: Use ACPI wake capability bit to set wake_irq > ACPI: PM: Take wake IRQ into consideration when entering > suspend-to-idle > HID: i2c-hid: acpi: Stop setting wakeup_capable > HID: i2c-hid: Don't set wake_capable and wake_irq > Input: elan_i2c - Don't set wake_capable and wake_irq > Input: elants_i2c - Don't set wake_capable and wake_irq > Input: raydium_ts_i2c - Don't set wake_capable and wake_irq > > drivers/acpi/device_pm.c | 19 +++++++++-- > drivers/acpi/irq.c | 8 +++-- > drivers/acpi/resource.c | 23 ++++++++++---- > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 15 +++++++-- > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.h | 2 ++ > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c | 5 --- > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-core.c | 24 ++------------ > drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++------ > drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 6 +++- > drivers/i2c/i2c-core.h | 4 +-- > drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c | 15 +-------- > drivers/input/touchscreen/elants_i2c.c | 13 ++------ > drivers/input/touchscreen/raydium_i2c_ts.c | 7 +--- > drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/rsparser.c | 7 ++-- > include/linux/acpi.h | 23 +++++++++++--- > include/linux/ioport.h | 3 +- > 16 files changed, 117 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-) > For the HID patches (1, 9, 10): Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> Feel free to take those through whatever tree is the best, we don't have anything scheduled for i2c-hid for 6.1 right now. Cheers, Benjamin
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:59:09AM -0600, Raul E Rangel wrote: > Device tree already has a mechanism to pass the wake_irq. It does this > by looking for the wakeup-source property and setting the > I2C_CLIENT_WAKE flag. This CL adds the ACPI equivalent. It uses the > ACPI interrupt wake flag to determine if the interrupt can be used to > wake the system. Previously the i2c drivers had to make assumptions and > blindly enable the wake IRQ. This can cause spurious wake events. e.g., > If there is a device with an Active Low interrupt and the device gets > powered off while suspending, the interrupt line will go low since it's > no longer powered and wakes the system. For this reason we should > respect the board designers wishes and honor the wake bit defined on the > interrupt. ... > + if (irq_ctx.irq == -ENOENT) > + irq_ctx.irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_wake_get(adev, 0, &irq_ctx.wake_capable); I just realized, that there is an inconsistency on how we fill the wake_capable parameter. In some cases we check for IRQ for an error condition (IRQ not found) and in some the wake_capable still be filled. Here the best approach I believe is to add if (irq_ctx.irq < 0) return irq_ctx.irq; I.o.w. we apply the rule "do not fill the output parameters when it's known to be an error condition". > + if (wake_capable) > + *wake_capable = irq_ctx.wake_capable; > + return irq_ctx.irq;
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 6:32 AM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:59:09AM -0600, Raul E Rangel wrote: > > Device tree already has a mechanism to pass the wake_irq. It does this > > by looking for the wakeup-source property and setting the > > I2C_CLIENT_WAKE flag. This CL adds the ACPI equivalent. It uses the > > ACPI interrupt wake flag to determine if the interrupt can be used to > > wake the system. Previously the i2c drivers had to make assumptions and > > blindly enable the wake IRQ. This can cause spurious wake events. e.g., > > If there is a device with an Active Low interrupt and the device gets > > powered off while suspending, the interrupt line will go low since it's > > no longer powered and wakes the system. For this reason we should > > respect the board designers wishes and honor the wake bit defined on the > > interrupt. > > ... > > > + if (irq_ctx.irq == -ENOENT) > > + irq_ctx.irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_wake_get(adev, 0, &irq_ctx.wake_capable); > > I just realized, that there is an inconsistency on how we fill the wake_capable > parameter. In some cases we check for IRQ for an error condition (IRQ not found) > and in some the wake_capable still be filled. > > Here the best approach I believe is to add > > if (irq_ctx.irq < 0) > return irq_ctx.irq; > > I.o.w. we apply the rule "do not fill the output parameters when it's known > to be an error condition". > > > + if (wake_capable) > > + *wake_capable = irq_ctx.wake_capable; > > > + return irq_ctx.irq; > I applied the following: diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c index ba64e505183595..1618f5619d5ed9 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ int i2c_acpi_get_irq(struct i2c_client *client, bool *wake_capable) if (irq_ctx.irq == -ENOENT) irq_ctx.irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_wake_get(adev, 0, &irq_ctx.wake_capable); - if (wake_capable) + if (irq_ctx.irq > 0 && wake_capable) *wake_capable = irq_ctx.wake_capable; return irq_ctx.irq; Thanks!
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 4:43 AM Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 5:59 PM Raul E Rangel <rrangel@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Today, i2c drivers are making the assumption that their IRQs can also > > be used as wake IRQs. This isn't always the case and it can lead to > > spurious wakes. This has recently started to affect AMD Chromebooks. > > With the introduction of > > d62bd5ce12d7 ("pinctrl: amd: Implement irq_set_wake"), the AMD GPIO > > controller gained the capability to set the wake bit on each GPIO. The > > ACPI specification defines two ways to inform the system if a device is > > wake capable: > > 1) The _PRW object defines the GPE that can be used to wake the system. > > 2) Setting ExclusiveAndWake or SharedAndWake in the _CRS GpioInt. > > > > Currently only the first method is supported. The i2c drivers don't have > > any indication that the IRQ is wake capable, so they guess. This causes > > spurious interrupts, for example: > > * We have an ACPI HID device that has `_PR0` and `_PR3`. It doesn't have > > `_PRW` or `ExclusiveAndWake` so that means the device can't wake the > > system. > > * The IRQ line is active level low for this device and is pulled up by > > the power resource defined in `_PR0`/`_PR3`. > > * The i2c driver will (incorrectly) arm the GPIO for wake by calling > > `enable_irq_wake` as part of its suspend hook. > > * ACPI will power down the device since it doesn't have a wake GPE > > associated with it. > > * When the device is powered down, the IRQ line will drop, and it will > > trigger a wake event. > > > > See the following debug log: > > [ 42.335804] PM: Suspending system (s2idle) > > [ 42.340186] amd_gpio AMD0030:00: RX: Setting wake for pin 89 to enable > > [ 42.467736] power-0416 __acpi_power_off : Power resource [PR00] turned off > > [ 42.467739] device_pm-0280 device_set_power : Device [H05D] transitioned to D3cold > > [ 42.475210] PM: pm_system_irq_wakeup: 11 triggered pinctrl_amd > > [ 42.535293] PM: Wakeup unrelated to ACPI SCI > > [ 42.535294] PM: resume from suspend-to-idle > > > > In order to fix this, we need to take into account the wake capable bit > > defined on the Interrupt/GpioInt. This is accomplished by: > > * Migrating some of the i2c drivers over to using the PM subsystem to > > manage the wake IRQ. > > * Expose the wake_capable bit from the ACPI Interrupt/GpioInt resource > > to the i2c core. > > * Use the wake_capable bit in the i2c core to call > > `dev_pm_set_wake_irq`. This reuses the existing device tree flow. > > * Make the i2c drivers stop calling `dev_pm_set_wake_irq` since it's now > > handled by the i2c core. > > * Make the ACPI device PM system aware of the wake_irq. This is > > necessary so the device doesn't incorrectly get powered down when a > > wake_irq is enabled. > > > > I've tested this code with various combinations of having _PRW, > > ExclusiveAndWake and power resources all defined or not defined, but it > > would be great if others could test this out on their hardware. > > > > I'm sure this will surface some devices where the IRQs were not > > correctly marked as wake capable. Ideally the firmware can be fixed, but > > if not we can work around this in the kernel by providing a board > > specific `struct i2c_board_info` with the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag set. > > See `chromeos_laptop.c` for an example of matching DMI properties and > > setting the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` override. > > > > Thanks, > > Raul > > > > Changes in v4: > > - Added Reviewed-by > > - Reformatted with 96 char limit > > - Removed unnecessary !! > > - Removed unrelated white space change > > - Renamed i2c_acpi_add_resource to i2c_acpi_add_irq_resource > > - Expanded logic in i2c_acpi_add_i2c_resource to make it easier to read > > > > Changes in v3: > > - Kept `acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get_by` unchanged to avoid having to touch > > unrelated drivers. > > - Converted wake_capable parameter to bool. > > - Fixed bad indent > > - Convert wake_capable to bool > > - Only update wake_capable pointer once > > - Move wake_capable local into local block > > > > Changes in v2: > > - Added elants_i2c to series > > - Added raydium_ts_i2c to series > > - Fixed call site in mlxbf_gige_probe > > - Added ability to extract wake bit from Interrupt/IRQ resources > > - Look at wake_cabple bit for IRQ/Interrupt resources > > - I chose not to keep the legacy code around since systems without DT or ACPI should be rare. > > > > Raul E Rangel (13): > > HID: i2c-hid: Use PM subsystem to manage wake irq > > Input: elan_i2c - Use PM subsystem to manage wake irq > > Input: elants_i2c - Use PM subsystem to manage wake irq > > Input: raydium_ts_i2c - Use PM subsystem to manage wake irq > > gpiolib: acpi: Add wake_capable variants of acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get > > ACPI: resources: Add wake_capable parameter to acpi_dev_irq_flags > > i2c: acpi: Use ACPI wake capability bit to set wake_irq > > ACPI: PM: Take wake IRQ into consideration when entering > > suspend-to-idle > > HID: i2c-hid: acpi: Stop setting wakeup_capable > > HID: i2c-hid: Don't set wake_capable and wake_irq > > Input: elan_i2c - Don't set wake_capable and wake_irq > > Input: elants_i2c - Don't set wake_capable and wake_irq > > Input: raydium_ts_i2c - Don't set wake_capable and wake_irq > > > > drivers/acpi/device_pm.c | 19 +++++++++-- > > drivers/acpi/irq.c | 8 +++-- > > drivers/acpi/resource.c | 23 ++++++++++---- > > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 15 +++++++-- > > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.h | 2 ++ > > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c | 5 --- > > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-core.c | 24 ++------------ > > drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++------ > > drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 6 +++- > > drivers/i2c/i2c-core.h | 4 +-- > > drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c | 15 +-------- > > drivers/input/touchscreen/elants_i2c.c | 13 ++------ > > drivers/input/touchscreen/raydium_i2c_ts.c | 7 +--- > > drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/rsparser.c | 7 ++-- > > include/linux/acpi.h | 23 +++++++++++--- > > include/linux/ioport.h | 3 +- > > 16 files changed, 117 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-) > > > > For the HID patches (1, 9, 10): > Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> > > Feel free to take those through whatever tree is the best, we don't > have anything scheduled for i2c-hid for 6.1 right now. > > Cheers, > Benjamin > Great thanks! I'll include your Acked-By in the next round.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 09:18:34AM -0600, Raul Rangel wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 6:32 AM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:59:09AM -0600, Raul E Rangel wrote: ... > > > + if (irq_ctx.irq == -ENOENT) > > > + irq_ctx.irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_wake_get(adev, 0, &irq_ctx.wake_capable); > > > > I just realized, that there is an inconsistency on how we fill the wake_capable > > parameter. In some cases we check for IRQ for an error condition (IRQ not found) > > and in some the wake_capable still be filled. > > > > Here the best approach I believe is to add > > > > if (irq_ctx.irq < 0) > > return irq_ctx.irq; > > > > I.o.w. we apply the rule "do not fill the output parameters when it's known > > to be an error condition". > > > > > + if (wake_capable) > > > + *wake_capable = irq_ctx.wake_capable; > > > > > + return irq_ctx.irq; > > > > I applied the following: > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c > index ba64e505183595..1618f5619d5ed9 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-acpi.c > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ int i2c_acpi_get_irq(struct i2c_client *client, > bool *wake_capable) > if (irq_ctx.irq == -ENOENT) > irq_ctx.irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_wake_get(adev, 0, > &irq_ctx.wake_capable); > > - if (wake_capable) > + if (irq_ctx.irq > 0 && wake_capable) > *wake_capable = irq_ctx.wake_capable; > > return irq_ctx.irq; While it's working solution it is not so flexible since basically any addition of a new code will require if (irq > 0), that's why I'm in favour of my proposal rather than yours approach.