Hans de Goede @ 2020-10-14 09:46 MST: > Hi, > > On 10/14/20 6:34 PM, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: >> Hans de Goede @ 2020-10-14 09:04 MST: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 10/14/20 5:23 PM, James Bottomley wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2020-10-14 at 17:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>>> On 10/13/20 6:05 PM, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: >>>>>> James Bottomley @ 2020-10-13 08:24 MST: >>>>>>> On Tue, 2020-10-13 at 08:15 -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: >>>>>>>> Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2020-10-12 18:17 MST: >>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> Jerry, once you have some bandwidth (no rush, does not land >>>>>>>>> before rc2), it would be great that if you could try this. >>>>>>>>> I'm emphasizing this just because of the intersection. I >>>>>>>>> think it would also make senset to get tested-by from Nayna. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will run some tests on some other systems I have access to. >>>>>>>> As noted in the other email I did a quick test with a t490s >>>>>>>> with an older bios that exhibits the problem originally >>>>>>>> reported when Stefan's patch enabled interrupts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, it means there's still some other problem. I was hoping >>>>>>> that because the rainbow pass system originally exhibited the >>>>>>> same symptoms (interrupt storm) fixing it would also fix the t490 >>>>>>> and the ineffective EOI bug looked like a great candidate for >>>>>>> being the root cause. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Adding Hans to the list. >>>>>> >>>>>> IIUC in the t490s case the problem lies with the hardware itself. >>>>>> Hans, is that correct? >>>>> >>>>> More or less. AFAIK / have been told by Lenovo it is an issue with >>>>> the configuration of the inerrupt-type of the GPIO pin used for the >>>>> IRQ, which is a firmware issue which could be fixed by a BIOS update >>>>> (the pin is setup as a direct-irq pin for the APIC, so the OS has no >>>>> control of the IRQ type since with APIC irqs this is all supposed to >>>>> be setup properly before hand). >>>>> >>>>> But it is a model specific issue, if we denylist IRQ usage on this >>>>> Lenovo model (and probably a few others) then we should be able to >>>>> restore the IRQ code to normal functionality for all other device >>>>> models which declare an IRQ in their resource tables. >>>> I can do that with a quirk, but how do I identify the device? TPM >>>> manufacturer and version? or do I have to use something like the ACPI >>>> bios version? >>> >>> I'm not sure if the TPM ids are unique to one model/series of laptops. >>> >>> So my idea for this was to match on DMI strings, specifically >>> use a DMI match on the DMI_SYS_VENDOR and DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION >>> strings (normally one would use DMI_PRODUCT_NAME but for Lenovo >>> devices the string which you expect to be in DMI_PRODUCT_NAME >>> is actually in DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION). >>> >>> You can easily get the strings for your device by doing: >>> >>> cat /sys/class/dmi/id/sys_vendor >>> cat /sys/class/dmi/id/product_version >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Hans >> Plus use dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE,...) to check >> if the bios is older than the fixed bios? Has Lenovo >> released the fixed bios? > > Maybe, the fixed BIOS-es which I have seen (for the X1C8, > broken BIOS was a pre-production BIOS) "fixed" this by > no longer listing an IRQ in the ACPI resources for the TPM. > > Which means that the new BIOS still being on the deny list > does not matter since the IRQ support won't work anyways as > we no longer get an IRQ assigned. > > So I don't think this is necessary and it will just complicate > things unnecessarily. This whole saga has already taken way > too long to fix. So IMHO the simplest fix where we just deny > list the broken models independent of BIOS versions and move > on seems best. > > Regards, > > Hans Yea, probably just best to disable for the model and be done with it. Regards, Jerry
