From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82257215198; Mon, 22 Sep 2025 16:21:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758558084; cv=none; b=pCEMoRlaC111BQkQneJiJKn8ZYsgw3xZ5/h//9HCNzzyedvaHIFwalCRsKwimZJ2NE+UYBfU5wX/ca33RaQRILZgGm0NkgjoOL+angZoxiCF11auYoM9UwtYmgyMbXeHMCMkpZ4qrGfO5ll3J0ISmthM76mcFSQ61uL+35NXFEQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758558084; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gREPxZQCm8A4g2apBZdO6hgrydmqp7znNzVB64FbT14=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=W/oG9IMnv1OAR8pem2wp91jWF0p/TO64zaAnzNvevxmV9hm6Cmnvk7Dv1oevrgIXrcrh98Y1IUC3dcsAS3xY3w9dI08A2HXpUnlbf868MEmlqsLrJ99pHNjUWpSh1aGHZ/jZ4D1tTqqs2S7Njkw9gFMerkLVpbHetTqtJHKw94I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=SZxPE1Wk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="SZxPE1Wk" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B5C5C4CEF0; Mon, 22 Sep 2025 16:21:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1758558084; bh=gREPxZQCm8A4g2apBZdO6hgrydmqp7znNzVB64FbT14=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=SZxPE1WkL1YRpJqsmRmhqPtQuk7L1fgzquTrDzQdl3KeYUN/yM4fKi8lH63OQ1Wyh na4x7Nu2LQXwPvzkGOkweNS+oSY77TyYmmC5WzQHa2OV36GlMMshEtcNgycrV2oJx/ qGxRiCbrPkH60XCxixK8OfFtJUukpCtChMIrxnuss1qEIw4sIpJBDbqbil+vgsoJxF NCZJuUkpGXuSwNumUmW2WtAoFZl7GZV3RZCafo3QGYvTnXxEXq4y+AZFs2YtXINqAZ SrHVkhvnKWI06Qb3Oy3iIzZOK9J88T2h7wm8hQCCEc9gFOHzJU4qB5oWWdnJ3YIqU7 W7ITZLeZghBfA== Message-ID: <79d7c45c-ccc9-411f-b9a8-47c02818f64c@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 11:21:22 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.17 REGRESSION FIX] gpiolib: acpi: Make set debounce errors non fatal To: Andy Shevchenko , Hans de Goede Cc: Mika Westerberg , Andy Shevchenko , Bartosz Golaszewski , Linus Walleij , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org References: <20250920201200.20611-1-hansg@kernel.org> <6d9e13e9-1e93-4e39-bfd1-56e4d25c007f@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: "Mario Limonciello (AMD) (kernel.org)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 9/21/2025 3:25 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 11:11 PM Hans de Goede 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) >>> 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 > >