Re: [PATCH 6.17 REGRESSION FIX] gpiolib: acpi: Make set debounce errors non fatal

["Mario Limonciello (AMD) (kernel.org)" <superm1@kernel.org>]

On 9/21/2025 3:25 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 11:11 PM Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On 21-Sep-25 9:03 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 9:09 PM Mario Limonciello (AMD) (kernel.org)
>>> <superm1@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> On 9/20/2025 3:12 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> Looks pretty much identical now to what I sent in my v3 and that Andy
>>>> had requested we change to make it fatal [1].
>>>>
>>>> Where is this bad GPIO value coming from?  It's in the GpioInt()
>>>> declaration?  If so, should the driver actually be supporting this?
>>>
>>> Since it's in acpi_find_gpio() it's about any GPIO resource type.
>>> Sorry, it seems I missed this fact. I was under the impression that v4
>>> was done only for the GpioInt() case. With this being said, the
>>> GpioIo() should not be fatal (it's already proven by cases in the wild
>>> that sometimes given values there are unsupported by HW), but
>>> GpioInt() in my opinion needs a justification to become non-fatal.
>>
>> GpioInt() debounce setting not succeeding already is non fatal in
>> the acpi_request_own_gpiod() case, which is used for ACPI events
>> (_AEI resources) and that exact use-case is why it was made non-fatal,
>> so no this is not only about GpioIo() resources. See commit
>> cef0d022f553 ("gpiolib: acpi: Make set-debounce-timeout failures non
>> fatal")
>>
>> IOW we need set debounce failures to be non-fatal for both the GpioIo
>> and GpioInt cases and this fix is correct as is.
> 
> Okay, since it doesn't change the state of affairs with for
> acpi_dev_gpio_irq_wake_get_by(), it's fair enough to get it as is.
> Mario, do you agree with Hans' explanations?
> 

Yeah it's fine as is, no concerns.

>> It is very likely too late to fix this *regression* for 6.17.0, please
>> queue this up for merging ASAP so that we can get a fix added to 6.17.1
> 
>