| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <fa761e91-0aa7-d18d-a1ad-17325f419c4c@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 14:01:53 -0500
From: "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Sachi King <nakato@...ato.io>, hdegoede@...hat.com,
mgross@...ux.intel.com, rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
Sanket.Goswami@....com, Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>
Cc: platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: amd-pmc: Add alternative acpi id for
PMC controller
On 10/8/2021 10:57, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> On 10/8/2021 07:19, Sachi King wrote:
>> On Friday, 8 October 2021 21:27:15 AEDT Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/8/2021 1:30 AM, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/5/2021 00:16, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/2/2021 9:48 AM, Sachi King wrote:
>>>>>> The Surface Laptop 4 AMD has used the AMD0005 to identify this
>>>>>> controller instead of using the appropriate ACPI ID AMDI0005.
>>>>>> Include
>>>>>> AMD0005 in the acpi id list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you provide an ACPI dump and output of 'cat /sys/power/mem_sleep'
>>>>
>>>> I had a look through the acpidump listed there and it seems like the
>>>> PEP
>>>> device is filled with a lot of NO-OP type of code. This means the LPS0
>>>> patch really isn't "needed", but still may be a good idea to include
>>>> for
>>>> completeness in case there ends up being a design based upon this that
>>>> does need it.
>>>>
>>>> As for this one (the amd-pmc patch) how are things working with it?
>>>> Have
>>>> you checked power consumption
>>
>> Using my rather limited plug-in power meter I measure 1w with this patch,
>> and I've never seen the meter go below this reading, so this may be over
>> reporting. Without this patch however the device bounces around
>> 2.2-2.5w.
>> The device consumes 6w with the display off.
>>
>> I have not left the device for long periods of time to see what the
>> battery
>> consumption is over a period of time, however this patch is being carried
>> in linux-surface in advance and one users suspend power consumption is
>> looking good. They have reported 2 hours of suspend without a noticable
>> power drop from the battery indicator.
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Flinux-surface%2Flinux-surface%2Fissues%2F591%23issuecomment-936891479&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=MND10b0iIblTgywFsxoLNx7D1bZuLZOmbqbhQJiezxM%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>
> Thanks, in that case this is certainly part of what you'll need and it
> sounds like you're on the right train as it pertains to the wakeup sources.
>
> For both patches in this series:
>
> Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
>
>>
>>>> and verified that the amd_pmc debugfs
>>>> statistics are increasing?
>>
>> s0ix_stats included following smu_fw_info below.
>>
>>>> Is the system able to resume from s2idle?
>>
>> It does, however additional patches are required to do so without an
>> external
>> device such as a keyboard. The power button, lid, and power plug trigger
>> events via pinctrl-amd. Keyboard and trackpad go via the Surface EC and
>> require the surface_* drivers, which do not have wakeup support.
>>
>> 1. The AMDI0031 pinctrl-amd device is setup on Interrupt 7, however
>> the APIC
>> table does not define an interrupt source override. Right now I'm not
>> sure
>> how approach producing a quirk for this. linux-surface is carrying
>> the hack
>> described in
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Flkml%2F87lf8ddjqx.ffs%40nanos.tec.linutronix.de%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5dWwpgh%2FRIA%2F57UpY5h0l9Snzem%2BNpirgE6ujEHO7aY%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Also available here:
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Flinux-surface%2Fkernel%2Fcommit%2F25baf27d6d76f068ab8e7cb7a5be33218ac9bd6b&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=HPZfqPoVUJT8w%2FRD7UaVjegT0iRLDlRkXfOwMx5HS8Q%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>> 2. pinctrl: amd: Handle wake-up interrupt
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.kernel.org%2Ftorvalds%2Fc%2Facd47b9f28e5&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=gUtHcFKolVIZeHtIIJuT3BkruQbjq8NAOU5504%2F02Mg%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Without this patch the device would suspend, but any interrupt via
>> pinctrl-amd would result in a failed resume, which is every wakeup
>> souce I know of on this device.
>
> Yes that was the same experience a number of us had on other AMD based
> platforms as well which led to this patch being submitted.
>
>>
>> 3. pinctrl: amd: disable and mask interrupts on probe
>> Once I worked out that I needed the patch in 2 above the device gets a
>> lot
>> of spurious wakeups, largely because Surface devices have a second
>> embedded
>> controller that wants to wake the device on all sorts of events. We
>> don't
>> have support for that, and there were a number of interrupts not
>> configured
>> by linux that were set enabled, unmasked, and wake in s0i3 on boot.
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Flinux-gpio%2F20211001161714.2053597-1-nakato%40nakato.io%2FT%2F%23t&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=mwJgcXBY9zdlTG671KssViHdSwHfq6DCJ2fpeLbRbR4%3D&reserved=0
>>
>
> We'll have to take a look at this to make sure it's not causing a
> regression for the other platforms the original patch helped. If it
> does, then we'll need some sort of other messaging to accomplish this
> for the surface devices.
>
>>
>> These three are enough to be able to wake the device via a lid event,
>> or by
>> changing the state of the power cable.
>>
>> 4. The power button requires another pair of patches. These are only
>> in the
>> linux-surface kernel as qzed would like to run them there for a couple of
>> releases before we propose them upstream. These patches change the
>> method
>> used to determine if we should load surfacepro3-button or
>> soc-button-array.
>> The AMD variant Surface Laptops were loading surfacepro3-button instead
>> soc-button-array. They can be seen:
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Flinux-surface%2Fkernel%2Fcommit%2F1927c0b30e5cd95a566a23b6926472bc2be54f42&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PGWON0kCpByJtsO1rS9wrYr7oH86V%2F8M%2FYLmUoFjBhM%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Flinux-surface%2Fkernel%2Fcommit%2Fac1a977392880456f61e830a95e368cad7a0fa3f&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B%2BBW3M4L5TLCq3Fc6oB0KHaC9A%2FQp3uwkB2Jby%2FdDo8%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>>
>>> Echo-ing to what Mario said, I am also equally interested in knowing the
>>> the surface devices are able to reach S2Idle.
>>>
>>> Spefically can you check if your tree has this commit?
>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.kernel.org%2Fpub%2Fscm%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Fpdx86%2Fplatform-drivers-x86.git%2Fcommit%2F%3Fh%3Dfor-next%26id%3D9cfe02023cf67a36c2dfb05d1ea3eb79811a8720&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=XdRCk8klBuDRCk7UWL%2Ft5wiupVVgdCWBqFmaYgGK%2BFU%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>
>> My tree currently does not have that one. I've applied it.
>
> You should look through all the other amd-pmc patches that have happened
> as well in linux-next, it's very likely some others will make sense too
> for you to be using and testing with.
>
>>
>>> this would tell the last s0i3 status, whether it was successful or not.
>>>
>>> cat /sys/kernel/debug/amd_pmc/smu_fw_info
>>
>>
>> === SMU Statistics ===
>> Table Version: 3
>> Hint Count: 1
>> Last S0i3 Status: Success
>> Time (in us) to S0i3: 102543
>> Time (in us) in S0i3: 10790466
>>
>> === Active time (in us) ===
>> DISPLAY : 0
>> CPU : 39737
>> GFX : 0
>> VDD : 39732
>> ACP : 0
>> VCN : 0
>> DF : 18854
>> USB0 : 3790
>> USB1 : 2647
>>
>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/amd_pmc/s0ix_stats
>>
>> After two seperate suspends:
>>
>> === S0ix statistics ===
>> S0ix Entry Time: 19022953504
>> S0ix Exit Time: 19485830941
>> Residency Time: 9643279
>>
>> === S0ix statistics ===
>> S0ix Entry Time: 21091709805
>> S0ix Exit Time: 21586928064
>> Residency Time: 10317047
>>
>>
>
> Yeah these look good, thanks.
>
>>>> Does pinctrl-amd load on this system? It seems to me that the power
>>>> button GPIO doesn't get used like normally on "regular" UEFI based AMD
>>>> systems. I do see MSHW0040 so this is probably supported by
>>>> surfacepro3-button and that will probably service all the important
>>>> events.
>>
>> We require the first patch listed above to get pinctrl-amd to load on
>> this
>> system, and the two patches mentioned in 4 so we correctly choose
>> soc-button-array which is used by all recent Surface devices.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Sachi,
I was talking to some internal folks about this patch. We had one more
thought - can you please put into a Github gist (or somewhere
semi-permanent) the output of:
# cat /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/amdgpu_firmware_info
That way we know more about the FW versions on your system in case of
any future regressions stemming from this.
Hans,
If you can pick up the tag:
Link:
https://github.com/linux-surface/acpidumps/tree/master/surface_laptop_4_amd
as well as that value for "Link: <url>" pointing to amdgpu_firmware_info
in the commit message. Or if you want Sachi to re-spin to do
themselves, then Sachi feel free to add my Reviewed-by tag in your v2.
Thanks,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists