[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96cea5be-d285-8323-1ab2-9c8e87993165@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 15:20:51 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-input@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 regression fix] Input: soc_button_array - partial
revert of support for newer surface devices
Hi,
On 05-10-2019 14:17, Maximilian Luz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry for the inconvenience this change has caused.
>
> On 10/5/19 12:55 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Note ideally this seamingly unrelated change would have been made in a
>> separate commit, with a message explaining the what and why of this
>> change.
>
> Would I have known the impact, then yes. This change was added due to
> some reported instances where it seems that soc_button_array would
> occasionally load on MSHW0040 before the GPIO controller was ready,
> causing power and volume buttons to not work.
>
>> I guess this change may have been added to deal with -EPROBE_DEFER errors,
>
> Correct. After a comment mentioned that gpiod_get() returning
> -EPROBE_DEFER would be the proper way to detect this, I decided on this
> change.
Ok, on x86 the GPIO drivers really should all be builtin because
various ACPI methods including device D0 / D3 (power-on/off) methods
may depend on them. So normally this should never happen.
If this (-EPROBE_DEFER on surface devices) somehow still is happening
please let me know and we will figure something out.
> Might I suggest the following addition:
>
> Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>
S-o-b is only for patches which pass through your hands, e.g. if
you make changes to my patch and submit a v2 of it.
I guess you mean / want one of:
Acked-by: ...
or
Reviewed-by: ...
?
Regards,
Hans
> ---
> drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c b/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c
> index 97e3639e99d0..a0f0c977b790 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c
> @@ -92,11 +92,18 @@ soc_button_device_create(struct platform_device *pdev,
> continue;
>
> gpio = soc_button_lookup_gpio(&pdev->dev, info->acpi_index);
> - if (gpio < 0 && gpio != -ENOENT) {
> - error = gpio;
> - goto err_free_mem;
> - } else if (!gpio_is_valid(gpio)) {
> - /* Skip GPIO if not present */
> + if (!gpio_is_valid(gpio)) {
> + /*
> + * Skip GPIO if not present. Note we deliberately
> + * ignore -EPROBE_DEFER errors here. On some devices
> + * Intel is using so called virtual GPIOs which are not
> + * GPIOs at all but some way for AML code to check some
> + * random status bits without need a custom opregion.
> + * In some cases the resources table we parse points to
> + * such a virtual GPIO, since these are not real GPIOs
> + * we do not have a driver for these so they will never
> + * show up, therefor we ignore -EPROBE_DEFER.
> + */
> continue;
> }
>
> @@ -429,6 +436,14 @@ static int soc_device_check_MSHW0040(struct device *dev)
>
> dev_dbg(dev, "OEM Platform Revision %llu\n", oem_platform_rev);
>
> + /*
> + * Explicitly check if GPIO controller is ready. This check is done here
> + * to avoid issues with virtual GPIOs on other chips, as elaborated above.
> + * We are at least expecting one GPIO pin for the power button (index 0).
> + */
> + if (soc_button_lookup_gpio(dev, 0) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists