Re: a problem about the two patches in bug 10724 & 11428

[Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>]

Zhao Yakui wrote:
> Hi, Alexey
>    After investigation I found that the laptop in bug 11428 is the same
> as that in bug 8459. Is the EC on such laptop that you mean "optimized"
> EC? But in fact the OBF and IBF can reflect the EC status correctly
> although sometimes there is no GPE interrupt confirmation.
Why you use "but in fact" here? There is no reason to repeat to me my own
findings as a "new truth"...
> At the same time maybe EC will send a notification event requiring OS's
> attention. In such case OS can detect whether the notification event is
> sent  by checking the SCI_EVT bit in the EC GPE interrupt service
> routine.(I.E . acpi_ec_gpe_handler). In fact only checking notification
> event in ec gpe handler is enough to make EC work.
> 
> If so, the EC work flowchart will become very simple. I will try to
> write this patch and consult with Len.
You just described software poll mode of EC driver,
"missing confirmations" are the switch from pure interrupt mode to "the 
poll for IBF/OBF changes, but expect interrupt for SCI change".
Do you plan to drop pure interrupt mode now?
> 
> There is another issue. From the log in  comment #26 of bug 11428 I find
> that OS still issues the burst disable command although EC already exits
> the burst mode. Maybe we should check whether the EC is in burst mode
> before issuing EC burst disable command.
Does it hurt? 
>     >ACPI: EC: transaction start
>     >[  124.540016] ACPI: EC: <--- command = 0x83
>     >[  124.540016] ACPI: EC: ---> status = 0x0a
>     >[  124.542009] ACPI: EC: ---> status = 0x08
>     >[  124.542009] ACPI: EC: transaction end
> 
> Thanks.
>   
>  
>    
> 
>> Alex.
>