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
This worked for me:
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
index 0b214963539d..abe674d1de6d 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
#include <linux/of.h>
#include <linux/of_device.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/dmi.h>
#include "tpm.h"
#include "tpm_tis_core.h"
@@ -63,6 +64,26 @@ module_param(force, bool, 0444);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(force, "Force device probe rather than using ACPI entry");
#endif
+static int tpm_tis_disable_irq(const struct dmi_system_id *d)
+{
+ pr_notice("tpm_tis: %s detected: disabling interrupts.\n", d->ident);
+ interrupts = false;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct dmi_system_id tpm_tis_dmi_table[] = {
+ {
+ .callback = tpm_tis_disable_irq,
+ .ident = "ThinkPad T490s",
+ .matches = {
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "LENOVO"),
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION, "ThinkPad T490s"),
+ },
+ },
+ {}
+};
+
#if defined(CONFIG_PNP) && defined(CONFIG_ACPI)
static int has_hid(struct acpi_device *dev, const char *hid)
{
@@ -192,6 +213,8 @@ static int tpm_tis_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_info *tpm_info)
int irq = -1;
int rc;
+ dmi_check_system(tpm_tis_dmi_table);
+
rc = check_acpi_tpm2(dev);
if (rc)
return rc;
