On 09/12/2020 16:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 5:20 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Rafael
>>
>> On 09/12/2020 15:43, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:55 AM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/12/2020 23:48, Daniel Scally wrote:
>>>>> Hello again
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/12/2020 00:00, Daniel Scally wrote:
>>>>>> INT3472:08 is not an acpi device that seems to be a good candidate for
>>>>>> binding to 0000:00:00.0; it just happens to be the first child of
>>>>>> PNP0A08:08 that shares _ADR 0 and has _STA not set to 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The comment within acpi_find_child_device() does imply that there should
>>>>>> only ever be a single child device with the same _ADR as the parent, so
>>>>>> I suppose this is possibly a case of poor ACPI tables confusing the code
>>>>>> a bit; given both PNP0A08:00 and _all_ of the INT3472 devices have _ADR
>>>>>> set to zero (as indeed do the machine's cameras), but I'm not
>>>>>> knowledgeable enough on ACPI to know whether that's to spec (or at least
>>>>>> accounted for). The INT3472 devices themselves do not actually seem to
>>>>>> represent a physical device (atleast, not in this case...sometimes they
>>>>>> do...), rather they're a dummy being used to simply group some GPIO
>>>>>> lines under a common _CRS. The sensors are called out as dependent on
>>>>>> these "devices" in their _DEP method, which is already a horrible way of
>>>>>> doing things so more broken ACPI being to blame wouldn't surprise me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other problem that that raises is that there seems to be _no_ good
>>>>>> candidate for binding to 0000:00:00.0 that's a child of PNP0A08:00 - the
>>>>>> only devices sharing _ADR 0 and having _STA != 0 are those two INT3472
>>>>>> entries and the machine's cameras.
>>>>> After some more reading, I'm pretty confident that this is the problem
>>>>> now - I.E. that those devices having _ADR of 0 is what's causing this
>>>>> issue to materialise, and that those values should be set to something
>>>>> more appropriate. Still unsure about the best approach to fix it though
>>>>> from a kernel point of view; there doesn't seem to be anything out of
>>>>> whack in the logic, and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) there can be
>>>>> legitimate instances of child devices sharing _ADR=0 with the parent, so
>>>>> the problem becomes how to identify the illegitimate instances so that
>>>>> they can be discarded. My experience in this is really limited, so I
>>>>> lean towards the conclusion that hard-coding exceptions somewhere might
>>>>> be necessary to handle this without resorting to patched ACPI tables.
>>>>> Whether that's within acpi_find_child_device() to prevent matching
>>>>> occurring there, or else setting the adev->pnp.bus_address to some
>>>>> alternate value after creation to compensate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recognise that that's a horrible answer though, so I'm really hoping
>>>>> that someone has an idea for how to handle this in a better way.
>>>> Oops, missed this crucial line from the spec:
>>>>
>>>> "A device object must contain either an _HID object or an _ADR object,
>>>> but should not contain both."
>>>>
>>>> And here's the Device declaration for these objects:
>>>>
>>>> Device (PMI0)
>>>> {
>>>> Name (_ADR, Zero) // _ADR: Address
>>>> Name (_HID, "INT3472") // _HID: Hardware ID
>>>> Name (_CID, "INT3472") // _CID: Compatible ID
>>>> Name (_DDN, "INCL-CRDD") // _DDN: DOS Device Name
>>>> Name (_UID, Zero) // _UID: Unique ID
>>>>
>>>> So that's the broken part rather than the _ADR value of 0 specifically.
>>>> That at least gives a jumping off point for some logic to fix rather
>>>> than a hardcoded anything, so I'll try to work out a nice way to handle
>>>> that (probably ignoring adevs in acpi_find_child_device() with addr=0
>>>> and a valid _HID) and submit a patch.
>>> Please see the comment in find_child_checks(), though - it kind of
>>> tries to handle this case already.
>> It down-weights them currently yes, but does still allow them to match.
>> I think it makes more sense to not allow a match at all, at least in the
>> situation I've encountered, but I suppose the implication of the logic
>> in this check is that at some point we've encountered ACPI entries with
>> both _HID and _ADR that were potentially correct matches, which kinda
>> re-complicates things again.
> That's correct.
OK, that definitely makes it harder then. Sort of clutching at straws
here; is _ADR=0 a special case in any way? As far as I can tell it's
only a problem on my devices for that address but that could easily be
coincidence.
>>> I guess what happens is that _STA is not present under the device that
>>> is expected to be matched, so maybe the logic regarding this may be
>>> changed somewhat.
>> Hmm yeah I guess so, so this is kinda a combination of two problems
>> probably. And if the actual device that is expected to match had a _STA
>>> 0 then presumably the down-weighting of devices with a _HID in
>> find_child_checks() would ensure the correct dev was matched.
> That's the intended outcome.
>
> We may need another value (between the min and the max) to return when
> adev->pnp.type.platform_id is not set and _STA is not present.
Unfortunately this turns out not to be the problem in this case; on
checking for _STA too, all the potential devices except the 2 cameras
and their dependee PMICs have a _STA present but set 0, so
find_child_checks() throws -ENODEV; and downweights them below the devs
that shouldn't match.
