On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:49 PM Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 04:38:20PM +0800, Chris Chiu wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:34 PM Mika Westerberg > > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 08:19:59PM +0800, Chris Chiu wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 5:38 PM Daniel Drake <drake@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 5:17 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hmm... Can you confirm that laptop you declared as a fixed case and the > > > > > > mentioned here is the same one? > > > > > > > > > > They are definitely not the same exact unit - originally we had a > > > > > pre-production sample, and now we briefly diagnosed a real production > > > > > unit that was sold to a customer. There could be subtle motherboard > > > > > variations as you mention. > > > > > > > > > > > If it's the case, I recommend to ping Asus again and make them check and fix. > > > > > > > > > > We'll keep an eye open for any opportunities to go deeper here. > > > > > However further investigation on both our side and theirs is blocked > > > > > by not having any of the affected hardware (since the models are now > > > > > so old), so I'm not very optimistic that we'll be able to make > > > > > progress there. > > > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, Mika's proposal sounds feasible and not so intrusive. We may > > > > > > implement this later on. > > > > > > > > > > Chris will work on implementing this for your consideration. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the quick feedback! > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > What if I modify the patch as follows? It doesn't save HOSTSW_OWN register. > > > > It just toggles the bit specifically for the IRQ GPIO pin after resume when DMI > > > > matches. > > > > > > I don't really like having quirks like this if we can avoid it and in > > > this case I think we can. Just always save HOSTSW_OWN and then restore > > > it if there is a GPIO requested and the value differs (and log a warning > > > or something like that). > > > > You mean save the content of hostsw_own register on padgroup based ex. > > communities[i].hostown[gpp] = readl(base + gpp * 4); > > > > And then check the hostown bit for the GPIO requested pin in > > intel_pinctrl_resume(), > > differs the hostsw_own bit on pin base (like padcfg), then restore the > > hostsw_own > > value of the padgroug which the GPIO pin is belonging to? > > Yes. > > > I think what you mean should be a much more straightforward solution > > for this. Could > > you implement this in your way and we can try to help verification. Thanks. > > Sure I can but it probably does not happen until end of the week because > I'm currently busy with something else. Thanks for your attention. I don't want to distract you so I'll try to refine the patch. It would be a great help if you can help review and give comments. Don't know whether if the following patch still get the wrong idea about your thought. It saves the hostsw_own when GPIO requested, check if the value differs in resume() and restore if necessary. Please kindly correct me if any. Thanks diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c index 8cda7b535b02..d1cfa5adef9b 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ struct intel_pad_context { u32 padcfg0; u32 padcfg1; u32 padcfg2; + u32 hostown; }; struct intel_community_context { @@ -219,6 +220,24 @@ static bool intel_pad_acpi_mode(struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl, unsigned int pin) return !(readl(hostown) & BIT(gpp_offset)); } +static void __iomem *intel_get_hostown(struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl, unsigned int pin) +{ + const struct intel_community *community; + const struct intel_padgroup *padgrp; + + community = intel_get_community(pctrl, pin); + if (!community) + return NULL; + if (!community->hostown_offset) + return NULL; + + padgrp = intel_community_get_padgroup(community, pin); + if (!padgrp) + return NULL; + + return community->regs + community->hostown_offset + padgrp->reg_num * 4; +} + static bool intel_pad_locked(struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl, unsigned int pin) { struct intel_community *community; @@ -442,7 +461,7 @@ static int intel_gpio_request_enable(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned int pin) { struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev); - void __iomem *padcfg0; + void __iomem *padcfg0, *hostown; unsigned long flags; raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags); @@ -457,6 +476,10 @@ static int intel_gpio_request_enable(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, /* Disable TX buffer and enable RX (this will be input) */ __intel_gpio_set_direction(padcfg0, true); + /* Save HOSTSW_OWN */ + hostown = intel_get_hostown(pctrl, pin); + if (!pctrl->context.pads[pin].hostown) + pctrl->context.pads[pin].hostown = readl(hostown); raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pctrl->lock, flags); return 0; @@ -1543,12 +1566,22 @@ int intel_pinctrl_resume(struct device *dev) pads = pctrl->context.pads; for (i = 0; i < pctrl->soc->npins; i++) { const struct pinctrl_pin_desc *desc = &pctrl->soc->pins[i]; - void __iomem *padcfg; + void __iomem *padcfg, *hostown; u32 val; if (!intel_pinctrl_should_save(pctrl, desc->number)) continue; + hostown = intel_get_hostown(pctrl, desc->number); + val = readl(hostown); + if (!pads[i].hostown && val != pads[i].hostown) { + writel(pads[i].hostown, hostown); + dev_warn(dev, "pin %u not owned by host\n", + desc->number); + dev_dbg(dev, "restored pin %u hostsw_own %#08x\n", + desc->number, readl(hostown)); + } + padcfg = intel_get_padcfg(pctrl, desc->number, PADCFG0); val = readl(padcfg) & ~PADCFG0_GPIORXSTATE; if (val != pads[i].padcfg0) {