On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 11:07 PM Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:17:23PM -0600, Raul Rangel wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 PM Dmitry Torokhov > > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:12:41PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:01:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 AM Raul E Rangel <rrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake > > > > > > IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake > > > > > > and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling > > > > > > dev_pm_set_wake_irq. > > > > > > > > > > > > i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device > > > > > > tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this > > > > > > change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls > > > > > > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW > > > > > > defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source > > > > > > was the touchpad IRQ GPIO. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <rrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > I like this a lot [...] > > > > > > > > > > I also like this a lot, but this assumes that firmware has correct > > > > settings for the interrupt... Unfortunately it is not always the case > > > > and I see that at least Chrome OS devices, such as glados line (cave, chell, sentry, > > > > ect) do not mark interrupt as wakeup: > > > > > > > > src/mainboard/google/glados/variants/chell/overridetree.cb > > > > > > > > chip drivers/i2c/generic > > > > register "hid" = ""ELAN0000"" > > > > register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad"" > > > > register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)" > > > > register "wake" = "GPE0_DW0_05" > > > > device i2c 15 on end > > > > > > > > So the above entry specifies the `wake` register. This generates an > > ACPI _PRW resource. The patch series will actually fix devices like > > this. Today without this patch series we get two wake events for a > > device. The ACPI wake GPE specified by the _PRW resource, and the > > erroneous GPIO wake event. But you bring up a good point. > > Does this mean that the example that we currently have in coreboot > documentation (Documentation/acpi/devicetree.md) is not correct: > > device pci 15.0 on > chip drivers/i2c/generic > register "hid" = ""ELAN0000"" > register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad"" > register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_WAKE_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_A21_IRQ)" > register "wake" = "GPE0_DW0_21" > device i2c 15 on end > end > end # I2C #0 > > Doesn't in say that we have both GpioIrq and GPE wakeup methods defined > for the same device? Hrmm, yeah that is wrong and will cause duplicate wake events for the device. I'll push a CL to clean up the documentation. > > > > > I wrote a quick and dirty script (https://0paste.com/391849) to parse > > the coreboot device tree entries. Open source firmware is great isn't > > it? ;) > > > > $ find src/mainboard/google/ -iname '*.cb' | xargs awk -f touch.awk -- > > src/mainboard/google/eve/devicetree.cb > > ... > > > src/mainboard/google/sarien/variants/sarien/devicetree.cb > > 1 > > chip drivers/i2c/generic > > register "hid" = ""ELAN0000"" > > register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad"" > > register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_EDGE_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)" > > register "probed" = "1" > > device i2c 2c on end > > end > > Total Touchpad: 202 > > Total Wake: 195 > > > > Out of all the touchpads defined on ChromeOS it looks like only 4 > > devices are missing a wake declaration. I omitted touchpanels because > > ChromeOS doesn't use those as a wake source. chromeos_laptop.c already > > defines some devices with i2c board_info and it sets the > > `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag. I'm not sure if this is actually working as > > expected. `i2c_device_probe` requires a `wakeup` irq to be present in > > the device tree if the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag is set, but I'm assuming > > No it does not. If there is no wakeup IRQ defined of_irq_get_byname() > will return an error and we'll take the "else if (client->irq > 0)" > branch and will set up client->irq as the wakeup irq. > > > the device tree was missing wake attributes. Oh thanks for pointing that out. I might refactor patch #4 to just set the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag when `acpi_wake_capable` is true. > > > > > Anyway, patches 6, and 7 are the ones that drop the legacy behavior. I > > can figure out how to add the above boards to chromeos_laptop.c and > > get the wake attribute plumbed, or I can add something directly to the > > elan_i2c_core, etc so others can add overrides for their boards there. > > I'll also send out CLs to fix the device tree configs (not that we > > would run a FW qual just for this change). > > My preference is to limit board-specific hacks in drivers if we can, so > adding missing properties to chromeos_laptop.c would be my preference. How should we handle non chromeos boards? > > Thanks. > > -- > Dmitry Thanks!
