On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 6:01 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/27/20 4:13 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 4:31 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 10/26/20 11:54 PM, Coiby Xu wrote: > >>> Hi Hans and Linus, > >>> > >>> Will you interpret the 0x0000 value for debounce timeout in GPIO > >>> Interrupt Connection Resource Descriptor as disabling debouncing > >>> filter? > >>> > >>> GpioInt (EdgeLevel, ActiveLevel, Shared, PinConfig, DebounceTimeout, ResourceSource, > >>> ResourceSourceIndex, ResourceUsage, DescriptorName, VendorData) {PinList} > >>> > >>> I'm not sure if Windows' implementation is the de facto standard like > >>> i2c-hid. But if we are going to conform to the ACPI specs and we would > >>> regard 0x0000 debounce timeout as disabling debouncing filter, then we > >>> can fix this touchpad issue and potentially some related issues by > >>> implementing the feature of supporting configuring debounce timeout in > >>> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c and removing all debounce filter > >>> configuration in amd_gpio_irq_set_type of drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c. > >>> What do you think? > >>> > >>> A favorable evidence is I've collected five DSDT tables when > >>> investigating this issue. All 5 DSDT tables have an GpioInt specifying > >>> an non-zero debounce timeout value for the edge type irq and for all > >>> the level type irq, the debounce timeout is set to 0x0000. > >> > >> That is a very interesting observation and this matches with my > >> instincts which say that we should just disable the debounce filter > >> for level triggered interrupts in pinctrl-amd.c > >> > >> Yes that is a bit of a shortcut vs reading the valie from the ACPI > >> table, but I'm not sure that 0 always means disabled. > >> > >> Specifically the ACPI 6.2 spec also has a notion of pinconf settings > >> and the docs on "PinConfig()" say: > >> > >> Note: There is some overlap between the properties set by GpioIo/GpioInt/ PinFunction and > >> PinConfig descriptors. For example, both are setting properties such as pull-ups. If the same > >> property is specified by multiple descriptors for the same pins, the order in which these properties > >> are applied is undetermined. To avoid any conflicts, GpioInt/GpioIo/PinFunction should provide a > >> default value for these properties when PinConfig is used. If PinConfig is used to set pin bias, > >> PullDefault should be used for GpioIo/GpioInt/ PinFunction. *If PinConfig is used to set debounce > >> timeout, 0 should be used for GpioIo/GpioInt.* > >> > >> So that suggests that a value of 0 does not necessarily mean "disabled" but > >> it means use a default, or possibly get the value from somewhere else such > >> as from a ACPI PinConfig description (if present). > > > > Nope, it was added to get rid of disambiguation when both Gpio*() and > > PinConfig() are given. > > So, 0 means default *if and only if* PinConfig() is present. > > > > I.o.w. the OS layers should do this: > > > > - if Gpio*() provides Debounce != 0, we use it, otherwise > > - if PinConfig() is present for this pin with a debounce set, use it, otherwise > > - debounce is disabled. > > > > Now we missed a midentry implementation in the Linux kernel, hence go > > to last, i.e. disable debounce. > > But it should be rather done in gpiolib-acpi.c. > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > I Cc'ed this to Mika as co-author of that part of specification, he > > may correct me if I'm wrong. > > I see, so then the right thing to do for the bug which we are seeing > on some AMD platforms would be to honor the debounce setting I guess ? > > Can you and/or Mika write a patch(set) for this ? I will look at it, but meanwhile I would postpone until having a Mika's Ack on the action that my understanding and course of actions is correct. > > P.S. Does RedHat have a representative in ASWG? > > I think so yes, but mainly focussed on server related things I guess... -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko