Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ACPI / button: Add document for ACPI control method lid device restrictions

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 08:37:50AM +0000, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi, Dmitry
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> > From: Dmitry Torokhov [mailto:dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ACPI / button: Add document for ACPI control
> > method lid device restrictions
> > 
> > Hi Lv,
> > 
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:24:50AM +0000, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> > > Hi, Dmitry
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review.
> > >
> > > > From: Dmitry Torokhov [mailto:dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ACPI / button: Add document for ACPI
> > control
> > > > method lid device restrictions
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:11:21PM +0800, Lv Zheng wrote:
> > > > > This patch adds documentation for the usage model of the control
> > > > method lid
> > > > > device.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Bastien Nocera: <hadess@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: linux-input@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  Documentation/acpi/acpi-lid.txt |   89
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 89 insertions(+)
> > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/acpi/acpi-lid.txt
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/acpi/acpi-lid.txt
> > b/Documentation/acpi/acpi-
> > > > lid.txt
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 0000000..2addedc
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/acpi/acpi-lid.txt
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
> > > > > +Usage Model of the ACPI Control Method Lid Device
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Copyright (C) 2016, Intel Corporation
> > > > > +Author: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Abstract:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Platforms containing lids convey lid state (open/close) to OSPMs
> > using
> > > > a
> > > > > +control method lid device. To implement this, the AML tables issue
> > > > > +Notify(lid_device, 0x80) to notify the OSPMs whenever the lid state
> > has
> > > > > +changed. The _LID control method for the lid device must be
> > > > implemented to
> > > > > +report the "current" state of the lid as either "opened" or "closed".
> > > > > +
> > > > > +This document describes the restrictions and the expections of the
> > > > Linux
> > > > > +ACPI lid device driver.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +
> > > > > +1. Restrictions of the returning value of the _LID control method
> > > > > +
> > > > > +The _LID control method is described to return the "current" lid
> > state.
> > > > > +However the word of "current" has ambiguity, many AML tables
> > return
> > > > the lid
> > > >
> > > > Can this be fixed in the next ACPI revision?
> > > [Lv Zheng]
> > > Even this is fixed in the ACPI specification, there are platforms already
> > doing this.
> > > Especially platforms from Microsoft.
> > > So the de-facto standard OS won't care about the change.
> > > And we can still see such platforms.
> > >
> > > Here is an example from Surface 3:
> > >
> > > DefinitionBlock ("dsdt.aml", "DSDT", 2, "ALASKA", "A M I ", 0x01072009)
> > > {
> > >     Scope (_SB)
> > >     {
> > >         Device (PCI0)
> > >         {
> > >             Name (_HID, EisaId ("PNP0A08"))  // _HID: Hardware ID
> > >             Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0A03"))  // _CID: Compatible ID
> > >             Device (SPI1)
> > >             {
> > >                 Name (_HID, "8086228E")  // _HID: Hardware ID
> > >                 Device (NTRG)
> > >                 {
> > >                     Name (_HID, "MSHW0037")  // _HID: Hardware ID
> > >                 }
> > >             }
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         Device (LID)
> > >         {
> > >             Name (_HID, EisaId ("PNP0C0D"))
> > >             Name (LIDB, Zero)
> > 
> > Start with lid closed? In any case might be wrong.
> [Lv Zheng] 
> And we validated with qemu that during boot, Windows7 evaluates _LID once but doesn't get suspended because of this value.
> So we think Windows only suspends against "notification" not _LID evaluation result.
> 
> > 
> > >             Method (_LID, 0, NotSerialized)
> > >             {
> > >                 Return (LIDB)
> > 
> > So "_LID" returns the last state read by "_EC4". "_EC4" is
> > edge-triggered and will be evaluated every time gpio changes state.
> [Lv Zheng] 
> Right.
> 
> > 
> > >             }
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         Device (GPO0)
> > >         {
> > >             Name (_HID, "INT33FF")  // _HID: Hardware ID
> > >             OperationRegion (GPOR, GeneralPurposeIo, Zero, One)
> > >             Field (GPOR, ByteAcc, NoLock, Preserve)
> > >             {
> > >                 Connection (
> > >                     GpioIo (Shared, PullNone, 0x0000, 0x0000, IoRestrictionNone,
> > >                         "\\_SB.GPO0", 0x00, ResourceConsumer, ,
> > >                         )
> > >                         {   // Pin list
> > >                             0x004C
> > >                         }
> > >                 ),
> > >                 HELD,   1
> > 
> > Is it possible to read state of this GPIO from userspace on startup to
> > correct the initial state?
> [Lv Zheng] 
> I think Benjamin has a proposal of fixing this in GPIO driver.
> 
> > 
> > >             }
> > >             Method (_E4C, 0, Serialized)
> > >             {
> > >                 If (LEqual(HELD, One))
> > >                 {
> > >                     Store(One, ^^LID.LIDB)
> > >
> > > There is no "open" event generated by "Surface 3".
> > 
> > Right so we update the state correctly, we just forgot to send the
> > notification. Nothing that polling can't fix.
> > 
> [Lv Zheng] 
> However, polling is not efficient, and not power efficient.

We would not need to do this by default, and polling on a relaxed
schedule (so that wakeups for polling coincide with other wakeups)
should not be too bad (as in fractions of percent of power spent).

> OTOH, according to the validation result, Windows never poll _LID.
> 
> > >
> > >                 }
> > >                 Else
> > >                 {
> > >                     Store(Zero, ^^LID.LIDB)
> > >                     Notify (LID, 0x80)
> > >
> > > There is only "close" event generated by "Surface 3".
> > > Thus they are not paired.
> > >
> > >                 }
> > >                 Notify (^^PCI0.SPI1.NTRG, One) // Device Check
> > >             }
> > >         }
> > >     }
> > > }
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +state upon the last lid notification instead of returning the lid state
> > > > > +upon the last _LID evaluation. There won't be difference when the
> > _LID
> > > > > +control method is evaluated during the runtime, the problem is its
> > > > initial
> > > > > +returning value. When the AML tables implement this control
> > method
> > > > with
> > > > > +cached value, the initial returning value is likely not reliable. There
> > are
> > > > > +simply so many examples always retuning "closed" as initial lid
> > state.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +2. Restrictions of the lid state change notifications
> > > > > +
> > > > > +There are many AML tables never notifying when the lid device
> > state is
> > > > > +changed to "opened". Thus the "opened" notification is not
> > guaranteed.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +But it is guaranteed that the AML tables always notify "closed"
> > when
> > > > the
> > > > > +lid state is changed to "closed". The "closed" notification is normally
> > > > > +used to trigger some system power saving operations on Windows.
> > > > Since it is
> > > > > +fully tested, the "closed" notification is reliable for all AML tables.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +3. Expections for the userspace users of the ACPI lid device driver
> > > > > +
> > > > > +The ACPI button driver exports the lid state to the userspace via the
> > > > > +following file:
> > > > > +  /proc/acpi/button/lid/LID0/state
> > > > > +This file actually calls the _LID control method described above. And
> > > > given
> > > > > +the previous explanation, it is not reliable enough on some
> > platforms.
> > > > So
> > > > > +it is advised for the userspace program to not to solely rely on this
> > file
> > > > > +to determine the actual lid state.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +The ACPI button driver emits 2 kinds of events to the user space:
> > > > > +  SW_LID
> > > > > +   When the lid state/event is reliable, the userspace can behave
> > > > > +   according to this input switch event.
> > > > > +   This is a mode prepared for backward compatiblity.
> > > > > +  KEY_EVENT_OPEN/KEY_EVENT_CLOSE
> > > > > +   When the lid state/event is not reliable, the userspace should
> > behave
> > > > > +   according to these 2 input key events.
> > > > > +   New userspace programs may only be prepared for the input key
> > > > events.
> > > >
> > > > No, absolutely not. If some x86 vendors managed to mess up their
> > > > firmware implementations that does not mean that everyone now has
> > to
> > > > abandon working perfectly well for them SW_LID events and rush to
> > > > switch
> > > > to a brand new event.
> > > [Lv Zheng]
> > > However there is no clear wording in the ACPI specification asking the
> > vendors to achieve paired lid events.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Apparently were are a few issues, main is that some systems not
> > reporting
> > > > "open" event. This can be dealt with by userspace "writing" to the
> > > > lid's evdev device EV_SW/SW_LID/0 event upon system resume (and
> > > > startup)
> > > > for selected systems. This will mean that if system wakes up not
> > because
> > > > LID is open we'll incorrectly assume that it is, but we can either add
> > > > more smarts to the process emitting SW_LID event or simply say "well,
> > > > tough, the hardware is crappy" and bug vendor to see if they can fix
> > the
> > > > issue (if not for current firmware them for next).
> > > [Lv Zheng]
> > > The problem is there is no vendor actually caring about fixing this "issue".
> > > Because Windows works well with their firmware.
> > > Then finally becomes a big table customization business for our team.
> > 
> > Well, OK. But you do not expect that we will redo up and down the stack
> > lid handling just because MS messed up DSDT on Surface 3? No, let them
> > know (they now care about Linux, right?) so Surface 4 works and quirk
> > the behavior for Surface 3.
> [Lv Zheng] 
> I think there are other platforms broken.

Probably. I think we should deal with them as they come.

> 
> > 
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As an additional workaround, we can toggle the LID switch off and on
> > > > when we get notification, much like your proposed patch does for the
> > key
> > > > events.
> > > [Lv Zheng]
> > > I think this is doable, I'll refresh my patchset to address your this
> > comment.
> > > By inserting open/close events when next close/open event arrives after
> > a certain period,
> > > this may fix some issues for the old programs.
> > > Where user may be required to open/close lid twice to trigger 2nd
> > suspend.
> > >
> > > However, this still cannot fix the problems like "Surface 3".
> > > We'll still need a new usage model for such platforms (no open event).
> > 
> > No, for surface 3 you simply need to add polling of "_LID" method to the
> > button driver.
> > 
> > What are the other devices that mess up lid handling?
> [Lv Zheng] 
> The patch lists 3 of them.
> Which are known to me because they all occurred after I started to look at the lid issues.
> 
> According to my teammates.
> They've been fixing such wrong "DSDT" using customization for years.
> For example, by adding _LID(); Notify(lid) into _WAK() or EC._REG().

What did they do with them once they did the fix? Were they submitting
fixes to manufacturers? What happened to them?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry