Message-ID: <36c7638f-964b-bee6-b44b-c8406e71dfec@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:29:45 +0200
From:   "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" 
        <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        Basavaraj Natikar <Basavaraj.Natikar@....com>,
        Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>,
        upstream@...ihalf.com, rad@...ihalf.com, mattedavis@...gle.com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        "Gong, Richard" <richard.gong@....com>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kornel Dulęba <korneld@...omium.org>,
        Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: amd: Disable and mask interrupts on resume

On 11.04.23 15:09, Kornel Dulęba wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 2:50 PM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> Leemhuis) <regressions@...mhuis.info> wrote:
>> On 10.04.23 17:29, Gong, Richard wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2023 12:03 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>>> On 3/20/23 04:32, Kornel Dulęba wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This fixes a similar problem to the one observed in:
>>>>> commit 4e5a04be88fe ("pinctrl: amd: disable and mask interrupts on
>>>>> probe").
>>>>>
>>>>> On some systems, during suspend/resume cycle firmware leaves
>>>>> an interrupt enabled on a pin that is not used by the kernel.
>>>>> This confuses the AMD pinctrl driver and causes spurious interrupts.
>>>>>
>>>>> The driver already has logic to detect if a pin is used by the kernel.
>>>>> Leverage it to re-initialize interrupt fields of a pin only if it's not
>>>>> used by us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kornel Dulęba <korneld@...omium.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>>>>   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c
>>>>> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c
>>>>> index 9236a132c7ba..609821b756c2 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c
>>>>> @@ -872,32 +872,34 @@ static const struct pinconf_ops amd_pinconf_ops
>>>>> = {
>>>>>       .pin_config_group_set = amd_pinconf_group_set,
>>>>>   };
>>>>>   -static void amd_gpio_irq_init(struct amd_gpio *gpio_dev)
>>>>> +static void amd_gpio_irq_init_pin(struct amd_gpio *gpio_dev, int pin)
>>>>>   {
>>>>> -    struct pinctrl_desc *desc = gpio_dev->pctrl->desc;
>>>>> +    const struct pin_desc *pd;
>>>>>       unsigned long flags;
>>>>>       u32 pin_reg, mask;
>>>>> -    int i;
>>>>>         mask = BIT(WAKE_CNTRL_OFF_S0I3) | BIT(WAKE_CNTRL_OFF_S3) |
>>>>>           BIT(INTERRUPT_MASK_OFF) | BIT(INTERRUPT_ENABLE_OFF) |
>>>>>           BIT(WAKE_CNTRL_OFF_S4);
>>>>>   -    for (i = 0; i < desc->npins; i++) {
>>>>> -        int pin = desc->pins[i].number;
>>>>> -        const struct pin_desc *pd = pin_desc_get(gpio_dev->pctrl, pin);
>>>>> -
>>>>> -        if (!pd)
>>>>> -            continue;
>>>>> +    pd = pin_desc_get(gpio_dev->pctrl, pin);
>>>>> +    if (!pd)
>>>>> +        return;
>>>>>   -        raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_dev->lock, flags);
>>>>> +    raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_dev->lock, flags);
>>>>> +    pin_reg = readl(gpio_dev->base + pin * 4);
>>>>> +    pin_reg &= ~mask;
>>>>> +    writel(pin_reg, gpio_dev->base + pin * 4);
>>>>> +    raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_dev->lock, flags);
>>>>> +}
>>>>>   -        pin_reg = readl(gpio_dev->base + i * 4);
>>>>> -        pin_reg &= ~mask;
>>>>> -        writel(pin_reg, gpio_dev->base + i * 4);
>>>>> +static void amd_gpio_irq_init(struct amd_gpio *gpio_dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    struct pinctrl_desc *desc = gpio_dev->pctrl->desc;
>>>>> +    int i;
>>>>>   -        raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_dev->lock, flags);
>>>>> -    }
>>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < desc->npins; i++)
>>>>> +        amd_gpio_irq_init_pin(gpio_dev, i);
>>>>>   }
>>>>>     #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>>>> @@ -950,8 +952,10 @@ static int amd_gpio_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>>>       for (i = 0; i < desc->npins; i++) {
>>>>>           int pin = desc->pins[i].number;
>>>>>   -        if (!amd_gpio_should_save(gpio_dev, pin))
>>>>> +        if (!amd_gpio_should_save(gpio_dev, pin)) {
>>>>> +            amd_gpio_irq_init_pin(gpio_dev, pin);
>>>>>               continue;
>>>>> +        }
>>>>>             raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_dev->lock, flags);
>>>>>           gpio_dev->saved_regs[i] |= readl(gpio_dev->base + pin * 4)
>>>>> & PIN_IRQ_PENDING;
>>>>
>>>> Hello Kornel,
>>>>
>>>> I've found that this commit which was included in 6.3-rc5 is causing a
>>>> regression waking up from lid on a Lenovo Z13.
>>> observed "unable to wake from power button" on AMD based Dell platform.
>>
>> This sounds like something that we want to fix quickly.
>>
>>> Reverting "pinctrl: amd: Disable and mask interrupts on resume" on the
>>> top of 6.3-rc6 does fix the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Reverting it on top of 6.3-rc6 resolves the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I've collected what I can into this bug report:
>>>>
>>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217315
>>>>
>>>> Linus Walleij,
>>>>
>>>> It looks like this was CC to stable.  If we can't get a quick solution
>>>> we might want to pull this from stable.
>>>
>>> this commit landed into 6.1.23 as well
>>>
>>>         d9c63daa576b2 pinctrl: amd: Disable and mask interrupts on resume
>>
>> It made it back up to 5.10.y afaics.
>>
>> The culprit has no fixes tag, which makes me wonder: should we quickly
>> (e.g. today) revert this in mainline to get back to the previous state,
>> so that Greg can pick up the revert for the next stable releases he
>> apparently currently prepares?
>>
>> Greg, is there another way to make you quickly fix this in the stable
>> trees? One option obviously would be "revert this now in stable, reapply
>> it later together with a fix ". But I'm under the impression that this
>> is too much of a hassle and thus something you only do in dire situations?
>>
>> I'm asking because I over time noticed that quite a few regressions are
>> in a similar situation -- and quite a few of them take quite some time
>> to get fixed even when a developer provided a fix, because reviewing and
>> mainlining the fix takes a week or two (sometimes more). And that is a
>> situation that is more and more hitting a nerve here. :-/
> 
> I've looked into this and at this moment I can't really find a quick fix.
> See https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217315#c3.
> It seems that reverting this might be the best solution for now.

Great, thx for the update (and BTW: Greg, thx for your answer, too).

To speed things up a quick question:

Linusw, what's your preferred course to realize this revert quickly?

 * someone (Kornel?) sends a revert with a commit msg for review, which
you then apply and pass on to the other Linus?

 * someone (Kornel?) sends a revert with a commit msg for review that
immediately asks the other Linus to pick this up directly?

 * we ask the other Linus directly to revert this (who then has to come
up with a commit msg on his own)?

Ciao, Thorsten

Powered by blists - more mailing lists