Re: [BUG] 36-second boot delay due to by acpi_gpio_handle_deferred_request_irqs on ASUS ROG Strix G16 (2025)

[Armin Wolf <W_Armin@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1468 bytes --]

Am 27.04.26 um 06:57 schrieb Mika Westerberg:

> On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 10:41:46PM +0200, Armin Wolf wrote:
>>>> according to the Microsoft documentation
>>>> (https://learn.microsoft.com/
>>>> en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/bringup/general-purpose-i-o--gpio-,
>>>> section "GPIO controllers and ActiveBoth interrupts"), triggering
>>>> GPIO interrupts marked as ActiveBoth during initialization is
>>>> correct as long as the associated GPIO line is already "asserted"
>>>> (aka logic level low). I think the problem is that we also trigger
>>>> edge-based GPIO interrupts _not_ marked as ActiveBoth.
>>>>
>>>> Based on this i agree with Hans, except that we should continue you
>>>> trigger ActiveBoth GPIO interrupts as long as the above
>>>> condition applies.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Armin Wolf
>>>>
>>> So maybe something like this (attached)?
>> Yes, exactly.
> This is good information and definitely scales better than the quirk list.
> The linked document also mentions that there is _DSM under GPIO device that
> could be used to override the asserted state:
>
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/bringup/gpio-controller-device-specific-method---dsm-
>
> I wonder if we should implement that as well?

I already did some work in this area, but i kind of forgot about it because i have no suitable device for testing this.
Maybe someone has a device that uses this _DSM and can check if the attached patch works?

Thanks,
Armin Wolf

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-gpiolib-acpi-Add-support-for-Microsoft-GPIO-_DSM.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 4269 bytes --]

From 2e1dc51c864802c05c3a9e6b745dd8c34b4b615b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 22:39:35 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] gpiolib: acpi: Add support for Microsoft GPIO _DSM

Microsoft has defined a ACPI device specific method for determining
the logic level for which a given ActiveBoth GPIO interrupt should be
considered "asserted". Such GPIO interrupts are normally considered to
be "asserted" when being logic level low.
Being able to override this assumption might be important for firmware
implementations where a ActiveBoth GPIO interrupt is asserted at logic
level high.

Link: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/bringup/gpio-controller-device-specific-method---dsm-
Signed-off-by: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@gmx.de>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi-core.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi-core.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi-core.c
index eb8a40cfb7a9..f7c58ae4d423 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi-core.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi-core.c
@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
 #include <linux/irq.h>
 #include <linux/mutex.h>
 #include <linux/pinctrl/pinctrl.h>
+#include <linux/printk.h>
+#include <linux/uuid.h>
 
 #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
 #include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
@@ -23,6 +25,14 @@
 #include "gpiolib.h"
 #include "gpiolib-acpi.h"
 
+/*
+ * Defined by Microsoft at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/bringup/
+ * gpio-controller-device-specific-method---dsm-.
+ */
+static const guid_t acpi_gpio_microsoft_guid = GUID_INIT(0x4F248F40, 0xD5E2, 0x499F, 0x83, 0x4C,
+							 0x27, 0x75, 0x8E, 0xA1, 0xCD, 0x3F);
+#define ACPI_GPIO_DSM_ACTIVE_BOTH_POLARITY 1
+
 /**
  * struct acpi_gpio_event - ACPI GPIO event handler data
  *
@@ -216,9 +226,11 @@ bool acpi_gpio_get_io_resource(struct acpi_resource *ares,
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_gpio_get_io_resource);
 
 static void acpi_gpiochip_request_irq(struct acpi_gpio_chip *acpi_gpio,
-				      struct acpi_gpio_event *event)
+				      struct acpi_gpio_event *event,
+				      union acpi_object *obj)
 {
 	struct device *parent = acpi_gpio->chip->parent;
+	bool active_low = true;
 	int ret, value;
 
 	ret = request_threaded_irq(event->irq, NULL, event->handler,
@@ -248,18 +260,67 @@ static void acpi_gpiochip_request_irq(struct acpi_gpio_chip *acpi_gpio,
 	if (acpi_gpio_need_run_edge_events_on_boot() &&
 	    ((event->irqflags & (IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING | IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING)) ==
 	     (IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING | IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING))) {
+		if (obj) {
+			for (u32 i = 0; i < obj->package.count; i++) {
+				if (obj->package.elements[i].integer.value == event->pin) {
+					active_low = false;
+					break;
+				}
+			}
+		}
+
 		value = gpiod_get_raw_value_cansleep(event->desc);
-		if (value == 0)
+		if ((active_low && value == 0) || (!active_low && value == 1))
 			event->handler(event->irq, event);
 	}
 }
 
+static union acpi_object *acpi_gpiochip_evaluate_dsm(struct acpi_gpio_chip *acpi_gpio)
+{
+	struct device *parent = acpi_gpio->chip->parent;
+	union acpi_object dummy = {
+		.package = {
+			.type = ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE,
+			.count = 0,
+			.elements = NULL,
+		},
+	};
+	acpi_handle handle = ACPI_HANDLE(parent);
+	union acpi_object *obj;
+
+	if (!acpi_check_dsm(handle, &acpi_gpio_microsoft_guid, 0,
+			    BIT(ACPI_GPIO_DSM_ACTIVE_BOTH_POLARITY)))
+		return NULL;
+
+	obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm_typed(handle, &acpi_gpio_microsoft_guid, 0,
+				      ACPI_GPIO_DSM_ACTIVE_BOTH_POLARITY,
+				      &dummy, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE);
+	if (obj) {
+		for (u32 i = 0; i < obj->package.count; i++) {
+			if (obj->package.elements[i].type == ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER)
+				continue;
+
+			dev_err(parent, FW_BUG "Ignoring GPIO _DSM due to invalid data\n");
+			ACPI_FREE(obj);
+			return NULL;
+		}
+	}
+
+	return obj;
+}
+
 static void acpi_gpiochip_request_irqs(struct acpi_gpio_chip *acpi_gpio)
 {
 	struct acpi_gpio_event *event;
+	union acpi_object *obj;
+
+	obj = acpi_gpiochip_evaluate_dsm(acpi_gpio);
 
 	list_for_each_entry(event, &acpi_gpio->events, node)
-		acpi_gpiochip_request_irq(acpi_gpio, event);
+		acpi_gpiochip_request_irq(acpi_gpio, event, obj);
+
+	if (obj)
+		ACPI_FREE(obj);
 }
 
 static enum gpiod_flags
-- 
2.39.5