From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
To: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Cc: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86/amd/pmc: Only disable IRQ1 wakeup where i8042 actually enabled it
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 18:58:46 +0200 (EET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a5781d0a-0a58-a708-1f8f-f9ade14ade52@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d5ed5ffc88fed17e1b1eb988c942e44fb540a68b.1735490591.git.mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> Wakeup for IRQ1 should be disabled only in cases where i8042 had actually
> enabled it, otherwise "wake_depth" for this IRQ will try do drop below zero
> and there will be an unpleasant WARN() logged:
> kernel: atkbd serio0: Disabling IRQ1 wakeup source to avoid platform firmware bug
> kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------
> kernel: Unbalanced IRQ 1 wake disable
> kernel: WARNING: CPU: 10 PID: 6431 at kernel/irq/manage.c:920 irq_set_irq_wake+0x147/0x1a0
>
> To fix this call the PMC suspend handler only from the same set of
> dev_pm_ops handlers as i8042_pm_suspend() is called, which currently means
> just the ".suspend" handler.
> Previously, the code would use DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() to define its
> dev_pm_ops, which also called this handler on ".freeze" and ".poweroff".
>
> To reproduce this issue try hibernating (S4) the machine after a fresh boot
> without putting it into s2idle first.
>
> Fixes: 8e60615e8932 ("platform/x86/amd: pmc: Disable IRQ1 wakeup for RN/CZN")
> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc/pmc.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc/pmc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc/pmc.c
> index 26b878ee5191..a254debb9256 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc/pmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmc/pmc.c
> @@ -947,6 +947,10 @@ static int amd_pmc_suspend_handler(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct amd_pmc_dev *pdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>
> + /*
> + * Must be called only from the same set of dev_pm_ops handlers
> + * as i8042_pm_suspend() is called: currently just from .suspend.
> + */
> if (pdev->disable_8042_wakeup && !disable_workarounds) {
> int rc = amd_pmc_wa_irq1(pdev);
>
> @@ -959,7 +963,9 @@ static int amd_pmc_suspend_handler(struct device *dev)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(amd_pmc_pm, amd_pmc_suspend_handler, NULL);
> +static const struct dev_pm_ops amd_pmc_pm = {
> + .suspend = amd_pmc_suspend_handler,
> +};
???
I cannot see what this change is supposed to achieve.
#define _DEFINE_DEV_PM_OPS(name, \
suspend_fn, resume_fn, \
runtime_suspend_fn, runtime_resume_fn, idle_fn) \
const struct dev_pm_ops name = { \
SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(suspend_fn, resume_fn) \
RUNTIME_PM_OPS(runtime_suspend_fn, runtime_resume_fn, idle_fn) \
}
#define DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(name, suspend_fn, resume_fn) \
_DEFINE_DEV_PM_OPS(name, suspend_fn, resume_fn, NULL, NULL, NULL)
#define SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(suspend_fn, resume_fn) \
.suspend = pm_sleep_ptr(suspend_fn), \
.resume = pm_sleep_ptr(resume_fn), \
.freeze = pm_sleep_ptr(suspend_fn), \
.thaw = pm_sleep_ptr(resume_fn), \
.poweroff = pm_sleep_ptr(suspend_fn), \
.restore = pm_sleep_ptr(resume_fn),
#define pm_sleep_ptr(_ptr) PTR_IF(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP), (_ptr))
Under what circumstances does this change result in some difference?
--
i.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-29 16:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-29 16:43 [PATCH] platform/x86/amd/pmc: Only disable IRQ1 wakeup where i8042 actually enabled it Maciej S. Szmigiero
2024-12-29 16:58 ` Ilpo Järvinen [this message]
2024-12-29 17:03 ` Maciej S. Szmigiero
2024-12-29 17:13 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-12-29 17:36 ` Maciej S. Szmigiero
2024-12-29 17:19 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-12-29 17:36 ` Maciej S. Szmigiero
2025-01-06 3:11 ` Mario Limonciello
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a5781d0a-0a58-a708-1f8f-f9ade14ade52@linux.intel.com \
--to=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mail@maciej.szmigiero.name \
--cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox