Hi, Benjamin > From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Benjamin > Tissoires > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] ACPI: button: Obselete acpi_lid_open() invocations > > Hi Lv, > > I am trying to reduce the number of parallel discussion we have on the > same subject, but there is something here I can't let you have. OK. So let's stop talking in PATCH 4-5. They are actually cleanups from my point of view. In fact, I don't see any big conflicts between us. My point of view is: There is a gap between (BIOS ensured/Windows expected) acpi control method lid device behavior and Linux user space expected acpi control method lid device behavior. Button driver default behavior should be: button.lid_init_state=ignore If user space programs have special needs, they can fix problems on their own, via the following mean: echo -n "open" > /sys/modules/button/parameters/lid_init_state echo -n "close" > /sys/modules/button/parameters/lid_init_state Keeping open/close modes is because I don't think there is any bug in button driver. So I need to prepare quirk modes from button driver's point of view and use them as a response to related bug reports reported in acpi community. Your point of view is: There is a gap between (BIOS ensured/Windows expected) acpi control method lid device behavior and Linux user space expected acpi control method lid device behavior. Button driver default behavior should be (not 100% sure if this is your opinion): button.lid_init_state=method If user space programs have special needs, they can fix them on their own, via the following mean: libinput:name:*Lid Switch*:dmi:*svnMicrosoftCorporation:pnSurface3:* LIBINPUT_ATTR_LID_SWITCH_RELIABILITY=write_open >From this point of view, we actually don't need open/close modes. It seems we just need to determine the following first: 1. Who should be responsible for solving bugs triggered by the conflict between bios and linux user space expectations: button driver? libinput? Some other user space programs? Users? 2. What should be the default button driver behavior? button.lid_init_state=ignore? button.lid_init_state=method? 3. If non button driver quirks are working, button driver quirk modes are useless. The question is: Should button.lid_init_state=open/close be kept? 4. From button driver's point of view, button.lid_init_state=ignore seems to be always correct, so we won't abandon it. If we can use libinput to manage platform quirks, then button.lid_init_state=method also looks useless. The question is: Should button.lid_init_state=method be kept? I should also let you know my preference: 1. using button.lid_init_state=ignore and button.lid_init_state=method as default behavior is ok for me if answer to 1 is not button driver, otherwise using button.lid_init_state=method is not ok for me 2. deletion of button.lid_init_state=open/close is ok for me if answer to 1 is not button driver, otherwise deletion of button.lid_init_state=open/close is not ok for me 3. deletion of button.lid_init_state=method is always ok for me See the base line from my side is very clear: If acpi community need to handle such bug reports, button.lid_init_state=method cannot be the default behavior. We are just using a different default behavior than "method" to drive things to reach the final root caused solution. Could you let me know your preference so that we can figure out an agreement between us. Though I don't know if end users will buy it (they may keep on filing regression reports in ACPI community). Can this make the discussion simpler? So before determining whether we should keep button.lid_init_state=open/close or not. We obviously should stop talking here. You can copy above questions to PATCH 1-2 discussion and reply in order to stop this. We can revisit PATCH 4-5 when the basic questions are answered. :) > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > If my previous reply is not persuasive enough. > > Let me do that in a different way. > > > >> From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Zheng, > >> Lv > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 5/5] ACPI: button: Obselete acpi_lid_open() invocations > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> > From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxx] > >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] ACPI: button: Obselete acpi_lid_open() invocations > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > Since notification side has been changed to always notify kernel listeners > >> > > using _LID returning value. Now listeners needn't invoke acpi_lid_open(), > >> > > it should use a spec suggested control method lid device usage model: > >> > > register lid notification and use the notified value instead, which is the > >> > > only way to ensure the value is correct for "button.lid_init_state=ignore" > >> > > mode or other modes with "button.lid_fake_events=N" specified. > >> > > > >> > > This patch fixes i915 driver to drop acpi_lid_open() user. It's not > >> > > possible to change nouveau_connector.c user using a simple way now. So this > >> > > patch only marks acpi_lid_open() as deprecated to accelerate this process > >> > > by indicating this change to the nouveau developers. > >> > > >> > If the only 2 users of acpi_lid_open() are intel and nouveau, and if > >> > they should rely on the value stored in the input node, not the one > >> > exported by the _LID method (which can be wrong on some platforms), > >> > how about simply changing the implementation of acpi_lid_open() to > >> > fetch the value from the input node directly? > > > > If acpi_lid_open() returns stored value in input node, > > then it actually returns the value we notified to the input layer. > > While i915 and nouveau explicitly do not trust that value and invoke acpi_lid_open(). > > > > For button.lid_init_state=method, PATCH 4/5 is useless as the values are same. > > > > However in my reply of PATCH 2. > > I explained the difference of method/close, for the same reason, we can also sense the difference of > method/open. > > The difference then can explain the usefulness of open/close modes. > > > > Given open/close modes are all useful: > > button.lid_init_state=open > > 1. button driver sends open to input layer after boot/resume > > 2. i915/nouveau uses _LID return value after boot/resume > > If _LID return value after boot/resume is "close", they are different. > > > > button.lid_init_state=close > > 1. button driver sends close to input layer after boot/resume > > 2. i915/nouveau uses _LID return value after boot/resume > > If _LID return value after boot/resume is "open", they are different. > > > > The only way to be consistent to old i915/nouveau behavior is: > > button.lid_init_state=open/close > > But these two modes are wrong in the absolute case: > - a laptop has no reasons for not being powered up with the lid > physically closed (wake on lan?) -> so open is an approximation > already made on good assumption that there is not a high chance of the > users powering/resuming the laptop with the lid closed > - in the "close" case, this setting works for docked laptops, but if > the laptop can be docked, it can also be undocked. And if you boot > with button.lid_init_state=close, undock your laptop, go into suspend, > resume -> the lid state is now "closed" while it should be opened. > > So no, these are just workarounds. i915/nouveau expect the acpi/button > state to be reliable, or they should ignore it. But you can't fake > events when you are not absolutely sure of what is happening. > > > 1. button driver sends open/close to input layer after boot/resume > > 2. button driver sends _LID return value to i915 after boot/resume (PATCH 4) > > So that i915 can just use the notified value in this patch (PATCH 5). > > For nouveau, no change has been made for now, and as a concequence, acpi_lid_open() is still kept > but marked as deprecated. > > > >> > >> See my reply of PATCH 4. > >> It seems they trust _LID return value more than what we send to them. > >> > >> We can actually send faked "open/close" to them when button.lid_init_state=open/close is specified. > >> > >> So these 2 patches [PATCH 4-5/5] are used to do a small cleanup for lid event notifier APIs. > >> I think they are not strictly related to the lid issues we are talking about. > > > > See Documentation/acpi/acpi-lid.txt: > > The _LID control method is described to return the "current" lid state. > > However the word of "current" has ambiguity, some buggy AML tables return > > the lid state upon the last lid notification instead of returning the lid > > state upon the last _LID evaluation. > > > > In order to have acpi lid event notifier API compliant to the above mentioned both "buggy" and > "nonbuggy" implementation. > > The ensured lid event model interface should be: > > 1. Lid event notifier listeners invokes acpi_lid_notifier_register(). > > 2. And in the callback, uses _LID return value. > > This is also the only possible way to combine "receiving lid notify" and "evaluate _LID" into 1 > single atomic operation. > > > > So I trend to remove acpi_lid_open() and enforce the new API. > > > > As a conclusion, PATCH 4-5 > > 1. makes a hidden logic explicit - the lid event listeners always use _LID return value. Less hidden > logics should leave less chances of bugs. > > 2. is an implementation for our documented ACPI lid event model. > > And the implementation is done in a regression safe way. > > I understand all of that. But my point is still that on some > platforms, the lid acpi state is not reliable, and the code in > i915/nouveau is not made for those platforms. So the ideal solution is > to know which platforms are problematic and take the right decisions > having everything at hands. Just "fixing" the internal API won't help > teaching these drivers to not make the assumption that the _LID acpi > call is always correct. > > So yes, nouveau/i915 might need to be fixed, but IMO, fixing > acpi/button to report correct (true, accurate, actual, or physical if > you prefer) is the best, future proof way (minus platform quirks). This leads to endless discussion. Let's make agreement on above questions first. Cheers, Lv > > Cheers, > Benjamin > > > > > Thanks, > > Lv > > > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Lv > >> > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Benjamin > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Cc: <intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > Cc: <nouveau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > --- > >> > > drivers/acpi/button.c | 7 ++++++- > >> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c | 2 +- > >> > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > > > >> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/button.c b/drivers/acpi/button.c > >> > > index 7ff3a75..50d7898 100644 > >> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/button.c > >> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/button.c > >> > > @@ -348,7 +348,12 @@ int acpi_lid_notifier_unregister(struct notifier_block *nb) > >> > > } > >> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_lid_notifier_unregister); > >> > > > >> > > -int acpi_lid_open(void) > >> > > +/* > >> > > + * The intentional usage model is to register a lid notifier and use the > >> > > + * notified value instead. Directly evaluating _LID without seeing a > >> > > + * Notify(lid, 0x80) is not reliable. > >> > > + */ > >> > > +int __deprecated acpi_lid_open(void) > >> > > { > >> > > if (!lid_device) > >> > > return -ENODEV; > >> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c > >> > > index 9ca4dc4..8ca9080 100644 > >> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c > >> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c > >> > > @@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ static int intel_lid_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val, > >> > > /* Don't force modeset on machines where it causes a GPU lockup */ > >> > > if (dmi_check_system(intel_no_modeset_on_lid)) > >> > > goto exit; > >> > > - if (!acpi_lid_open()) { > >> > > + if (!val) { > >> > > /* do modeset on next lid open event */ > >> > > dev_priv->modeset_restore = MODESET_ON_LID_OPEN; > >> > > goto exit; > >> > > -- > >> > > 2.7.4 > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > >> > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >> ��칻 �&�~�&� ��+-��ݶ ��w��˛���m�b��Zr����^n�r���z� ��h����&�� �G���h� (�階 > >> �ݢj"�� � m�����z�ޖ���f���h���~�m� > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
