Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: amd: Disable and mask interrupts on resume

[Kornel Dulęba]

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 3:29 PM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11.04.23 15:09, Kornel Dulęba wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 2:50 PM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> > Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>   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)?

Would you like me to send a reverting change?
I can do this right away.
The commit message would contain something like:

This patch introduces a regression on Lenovo Z13, which can't wake
from the lid with it applied.