Hi Greg, > -----Original Message----- > From: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 3:44 PM > To: Gopal, Saranya <saranya.gopal@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: 'Christian A. Ehrhardt' <lk@xxxxxxx>; Heikki Krogerus > <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > Regupathy, Rajaram <rajaram.regupathy@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: typec: ucsi: Do not call ACPI _DSM method > for UCSI read operations > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 09:41:51AM +0000, Gopal, Saranya wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Christian A. Ehrhardt <lk@xxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 3:21 AM > > > To: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Gopal, Saranya <saranya.gopal@xxxxxxxxx>; linux- > > > usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Regupathy, > > > Rajaram <rajaram.regupathy@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: typec: ucsi: Do not call ACPI _DSM > method > > > for UCSI read operations > > > > > > > > > Hi Heikki, > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 02:21:30PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 08:32:53PM +0200, Christian A. > Ehrhardt > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Heikki, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 12:20:47PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Saranya, Christian, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 11:47:42AM +0000, Gopal, Saranya > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Heikki, Christian, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Christian A. Ehrhardt <lk@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 3:40 AM > > > > > > > > To: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Cc: Gopal, Saranya <saranya.gopal@xxxxxxxxx>; linux- > > > > > > > > usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > Regupathy, > > > > > > > > Rajaram <rajaram.regupathy@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: typec: ucsi: Do not call ACPI > _DSM > > > method > > > > > > > > for UCSI read operations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Heikki, Hi Saranya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 11:44:33AM +0300, Heikki > Krogerus > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 02:13:42PM +0530, Saranya > Gopal > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ACPI _DSM methods are needed only for UCSI write > > > operations > > > > > > > > and for reading > > > > > > > > > > CCI during RESET_PPM operation. So, remove _DSM > calls > > > from > > > > > > > > other places. > > > > > > > > > > While there, remove the Zenbook quirk also since the > > > default > > > > > > > > behavior > > > > > > > > > > now aligns with the Zenbook quirk. With this change, > > > > > > > > GET_CONNECTOR_STATUS > > > > > > > > > > returns at least 6 seconds faster than before in > > > Arrowlake-S > > > > > > > > platforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Heikki Krogerus > > > <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Saranya Gopal > > > <saranya.gopal@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe this should be marked as a fix. I think this > covers: > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux- > > > usb/20240829100109.562429-2- > > > > > > > > lk@xxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heikki, > > > > > > > I see that Christian's other patch is marked as a fix already > > > (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20240906065853.637205-1- > lk@c-- > > > e.de/T/#u). > > > > > > > > > > > > The other part still needs a fix. > > > > > > > > > > Well technically not. I've established with the reporter of > > > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219108 > > > > > that the immediate regression (keyboard on ASUS laptop not > > > working) is > > > > > fixed with the ucsi.c patch (that got your Reviewed-By today) > > > alone. > > > > > > > > > > UCSI on the ASUS laptop is still broken but it always was, > AFAICT. > > > > > Thus I'd like to push the above mentioned patch as the fix for > > > > > the regression. > > > > > > > > > > The reporter was very helpful and responsive in testing and > > > > > I intend to look into the reason why UCSI does not work after > > > > > that with the reporter's help. > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 5 Sept 2024 at 20:00, Christian A. Ehrhardt <lk@c-- > > > e.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attached is version 4 of the patch. This will not fix the error > > > > > > > messages we talked about (I have to think about this some > > > more). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It should fix your keyboard issues, though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heikki had another request to change the patch and it > would > > > be > > > > > > > cool if you could test this version to make sure that it really > > > > > > > fixes your immediate problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU8: Topology domain 1 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU8: Topology domain 2 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU8: Topology domain 3 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU8: Topology domain 4 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU8: Topology domain 5 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU8: Topology domain 6 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU9: Topology domain 1 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU9: Topology domain 2 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU9: Topology domain 3 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU9: Topology domain 4 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU9: Topology domain 5 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU9: Topology domain 6 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU10: Topology domain 1 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU10: Topology domain 2 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU10: Topology domain 3 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU10: Topology domain 4 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU10: Topology domain 5 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU10: Topology domain 6 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU11: Topology domain 1 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU11: Topology domain 2 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU11: Topology domain 3 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU11: Topology domain 4 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU11: Topology domain 5 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU11: Topology domain 6 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU12: Topology domain 1 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU12: Topology domain 2 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU12: Topology domain 3 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > [ 0.019168] [Firmware Bug]: CPU12: Topology domain 4 > shift 7 > > > != 6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, can this patch go in as it is? > > > > > > > Please let me know if I need to resubmit with any > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you prefer that we go with Christian's patch to fix the > issue > > > > > > - which is fine by me - you need to rebase this on top of his > > > patch in > > > > > > any case. So you will need to resend this either way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Christian would you mind resending that second patch after > all > > > where > > > > > > you take the Zenbook quirk into use on that ASUS system? > > > > > > > > > > See above. The immediate regression is fixed with the already > > > > > reviewed patch alone. The remaining issue with UCSI on the > ASUS > > > > > laptop not working can be fixed separately. > > > > > > > > > > I'd rather base a fix for UCSI on the ASUS laptop onto > Saranya's > > > > > patch because I think that patch is the correct thing to do. > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, testing by the original reporter was > inconclusive > > > > > wrt. this. I have one report of a test run with the (classical) > > > > > ASUS quirk (and the other patch) where UCSI on the ASUS > laptop > > > > > did work. Patch version v1 was the result of this. > > > > > > > > > > With Saranya's patch and my patch to ucsi.c the regression > was > > > gone > > > > > but UCSI did _not_ work. > > > > > > > > > > As this does not make sense because Saranya's patch should > be > > > > > equivalent to the ASUS zenbook quirk. Thus this needs more > > > > > investigation and dropping the zenbook quirk patch looks like > the > > > > > correct thing to do. > > > > > > > > > > > Let's make that as the actual fix for the issue. Maybe it's > more > > > clear > > > > > > that way. > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you disagree and I can resend the ASUS > > > quirk > > > > > patch. > > > > > > > > No, that's not necessary. So we go ahead with this patch from > > > Saranya > > > > as is - we don't caim it fixes anything. Then you guys continue > > > > debugging that UCSI not working on the ASUS laptop issue. If I > got > > > > this correct then: > > > > > > Exactly. And > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240906065853.637205-1-lk@c-- > e.de/ > > > proceeds but is independent. > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Heikki Krogerus > <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > If there was nothing else, then my appologies for all the noise. > > > > > > No need to. The state of things was confusing and this type of > > > "noise" is your job as a maintainer :-) > > > > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > Gentle ping to consider taking this patch. > > It has been mere hours since the merge window closed and I could > even > consider applying this change. Please relax and understand the > ecosystem in which you are working in (also remember the weeks of > conferences most of us have been at right now.) > Sorry for my previous mail. I realize that the time I sent it wasn't correct. > To help make this work better, please take the time to review other > pending patches for the subsystem, which will ensure that your > changes > get moved to the top as others get reviewed. I'll wait for you to do > that before getting to this one... Sure, let me take the time to review the other pending patches. Thanks, Saranya > > thanks, > > greg k-h
