Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm850-lenovo-yoga-c630: lower PSCI cluster idle

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 6/12/26 11:25 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 02:15:55PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On 15/05/2026 14:13, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> On 5/15/26 1:09 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> On 15/05/2026 14:03, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>> On 5/15/26 1:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/05/2026 14:00, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/26 9:36 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>>> With the default PSCI suspend value for cluster idle state Lenovo Yoga
>>>>>>>> C630 isn't stable enough. For example it might reset if display device
>>>>>>>> isn't probed early enough. Drop one of the bits from the PSCI suspend
>>>>>>>> value to make C630 work in stable way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixes: a1ade6cac5a2 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: Switch PSCI cpu idle states from PC to OSI")
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>     arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm850-lenovo-yoga-c630.dts | 4 ++++
>>>>>>>>     1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm850-lenovo-yoga-c630.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm850-lenovo-yoga-c630.dts
>>>>>>>> index e41200839dbe..e6c67016552a 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm850-lenovo-yoga-c630.dts
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm850-lenovo-yoga-c630.dts
>>>>>>>> @@ -347,6 +347,10 @@ &cdsp_pas {
>>>>>>>>         status = "okay";
>>>>>>>>     };
>>>>>>>>     +&cluster_sleep_0 {
>>>>>>>> +    arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x41003244>;
>>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it better if you do hack in a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> qmp_send(qmp, "{class: cx_mol, res: cx, val: mol}");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any clarification? Then I can try hacking it in.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will send a message to AOSS to intrusct it to prevent CX from
>>>>> collapsing
>>>>
>>>> This sounds like a dirty hack. I think, hacking psci-suspend-param is a lesser evil.
>>>
>>> Yes, that dirty hack is supposed to help us understand why this is an issue
>>> in the first place. Especially since it only came around at some point
>>> (although I suppose you're not really happy with spending a day bisecting
>>> when exactly)
>>
>> A similar patch has, I think, always been in any laptop tree targeting c630.
>> It could having been a disablement of sync state, a removal of cluster sleep
>> or something similar.
> 
> And gracious ping.... Can we sort this out somehow?

Just to leave a note on lkml, we tried and kept finding more and
more issues with missing votes etc. We'll follow up with some fixes.

Konrad