On 10/8/2021 10:57, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
On 10/8/2021 07:19, Sachi King wrote:
On Friday, 8 October 2021 21:27:15 AEDT Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
On 10/8/2021 1:30 AM, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
On 10/5/2021 00:16, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
On 10/2/2021 9:48 AM, Sachi King wrote:
The Surface Laptop 4 AMD has used the AMD0005 to identify this
controller instead of using the appropriate ACPI ID AMDI0005.
Include
AMD0005 in the acpi id list.
Can you provide an ACPI dump and output of 'cat /sys/power/mem_sleep'
I had a look through the acpidump listed there and it seems like the
PEP
device is filled with a lot of NO-OP type of code. This means the LPS0
patch really isn't "needed", but still may be a good idea to include
for
completeness in case there ends up being a design based upon this that
does need it.
As for this one (the amd-pmc patch) how are things working with it?
Have
you checked power consumption
Using my rather limited plug-in power meter I measure 1w with this patch,
and I've never seen the meter go below this reading, so this may be over
reporting. Without this patch however the device bounces around
2.2-2.5w.
The device consumes 6w with the display off.
I have not left the device for long periods of time to see what the
battery
consumption is over a period of time, however this patch is being carried
in linux-surface in advance and one users suspend power consumption is
looking good. They have reported 2 hours of suspend without a noticable
power drop from the battery indicator.
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Flinux-surface%2Flinux-surface%2Fissues%2F591%23issuecomment-936891479&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=MND10b0iIblTgywFsxoLNx7D1bZuLZOmbqbhQJiezxM%3D&reserved=0
Thanks, in that case this is certainly part of what you'll need and it
sounds like you're on the right train as it pertains to the wakeup sources.
For both patches in this series:
Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
and verified that the amd_pmc debugfs
statistics are increasing?
s0ix_stats included following smu_fw_info below.
Is the system able to resume from s2idle?
It does, however additional patches are required to do so without an
external
device such as a keyboard. The power button, lid, and power plug trigger
events via pinctrl-amd. Keyboard and trackpad go via the Surface EC and
require the surface_* drivers, which do not have wakeup support.
1. The AMDI0031 pinctrl-amd device is setup on Interrupt 7, however
the APIC
table does not define an interrupt source override. Right now I'm not
sure
how approach producing a quirk for this. linux-surface is carrying
the hack
described in
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Flkml%2F87lf8ddjqx.ffs%40nanos.tec.linutronix.de%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5dWwpgh%2FRIA%2F57UpY5h0l9Snzem%2BNpirgE6ujEHO7aY%3D&reserved=0
Also available here:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Flinux-surface%2Fkernel%2Fcommit%2F25baf27d6d76f068ab8e7cb7a5be33218ac9bd6b&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=HPZfqPoVUJT8w%2FRD7UaVjegT0iRLDlRkXfOwMx5HS8Q%3D&reserved=0
2. pinctrl: amd: Handle wake-up interrupt
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.kernel.org%2Ftorvalds%2Fc%2Facd47b9f28e5&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=gUtHcFKolVIZeHtIIJuT3BkruQbjq8NAOU5504%2F02Mg%3D&reserved=0
Without this patch the device would suspend, but any interrupt via
pinctrl-amd would result in a failed resume, which is every wakeup
souce I know of on this device.
Yes that was the same experience a number of us had on other AMD based
platforms as well which led to this patch being submitted.
3. pinctrl: amd: disable and mask interrupts on probe
Once I worked out that I needed the patch in 2 above the device gets a
lot
of spurious wakeups, largely because Surface devices have a second
embedded
controller that wants to wake the device on all sorts of events. We
don't
have support for that, and there were a number of interrupts not
configured
by linux that were set enabled, unmasked, and wake in s0i3 on boot.
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Flinux-gpio%2F20211001161714.2053597-1-nakato%40nakato.io%2FT%2F%23t&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=mwJgcXBY9zdlTG671KssViHdSwHfq6DCJ2fpeLbRbR4%3D&reserved=0
We'll have to take a look at this to make sure it's not causing a
regression for the other platforms the original patch helped. If it
does, then we'll need some sort of other messaging to accomplish this
for the surface devices.
These three are enough to be able to wake the device via a lid event,
or by
changing the state of the power cable.
4. The power button requires another pair of patches. These are only
in the
linux-surface kernel as qzed would like to run them there for a couple of
releases before we propose them upstream. These patches change the
method
used to determine if we should load surfacepro3-button or
soc-button-array.
The AMD variant Surface Laptops were loading surfacepro3-button instead
soc-button-array. They can be seen:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Flinux-surface%2Fkernel%2Fcommit%2F1927c0b30e5cd95a566a23b6926472bc2be54f42&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PGWON0kCpByJtsO1rS9wrYr7oH86V%2F8M%2FYLmUoFjBhM%3D&reserved=0
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Flinux-surface%2Fkernel%2Fcommit%2Fac1a977392880456f61e830a95e368cad7a0fa3f&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B%2BBW3M4L5TLCq3Fc6oB0KHaC9A%2FQp3uwkB2Jby%2FdDo8%3D&reserved=0
Echo-ing to what Mario said, I am also equally interested in knowing the
the surface devices are able to reach S2Idle.
Spefically can you check if your tree has this commit?
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.kernel.org%2Fpub%2Fscm%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Fpdx86%2Fplatform-drivers-x86.git%2Fcommit%2F%3Fh%3Dfor-next%26id%3D9cfe02023cf67a36c2dfb05d1ea3eb79811a8720&data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Cb95422d699a2496a56f608d98a55e888%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637692923846585025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=XdRCk8klBuDRCk7UWL%2Ft5wiupVVgdCWBqFmaYgGK%2BFU%3D&reserved=0
My tree currently does not have that one. I've applied it.
You should look through all the other amd-pmc patches that have happened
as well in linux-next, it's very likely some others will make sense too
for you to be using and testing with.
this would tell the last s0i3 status, whether it was successful or not.
cat /sys/kernel/debug/amd_pmc/smu_fw_info
=== SMU Statistics ===
Table Version: 3
Hint Count: 1
Last S0i3 Status: Success
Time (in us) to S0i3: 102543
Time (in us) in S0i3: 10790466
=== Active time (in us) ===
DISPLAY : 0
CPU : 39737
GFX : 0
VDD : 39732
ACP : 0
VCN : 0
DF : 18854
USB0 : 3790
USB1 : 2647
/sys/kernel/debug/amd_pmc/s0ix_stats
After two seperate suspends:
=== S0ix statistics ===
S0ix Entry Time: 19022953504
S0ix Exit Time: 19485830941
Residency Time: 9643279
=== S0ix statistics ===
S0ix Entry Time: 21091709805
S0ix Exit Time: 21586928064
Residency Time: 10317047
Yeah these look good, thanks.
Does pinctrl-amd load on this system? It seems to me that the power
button GPIO doesn't get used like normally on "regular" UEFI based AMD
systems. I do see MSHW0040 so this is probably supported by
surfacepro3-button and that will probably service all the important
events.
We require the first patch listed above to get pinctrl-amd to load on
this
system, and the two patches mentioned in 4 so we correctly choose
soc-button-array which is used by all recent Surface devices.
Sachi,
I was talking to some internal folks about this patch. We had one more
thought - can you please put into a Github gist (or somewhere
semi-permanent) the output of:
# cat /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/amdgpu_firmware_info
That way we know more about the FW versions on your system in case of
any future regressions stemming from this.
Hans,
If you can pick up the tag:
Link:
https://github.com/linux-surface/acpidumps/tree/master/surface_laptop_4_amd
as well as that value for "Link: <url>" pointing to amdgpu_firmware_info
in the commit message. Or if you want Sachi to re-spin to do
themselves, then Sachi feel free to add my Reviewed-by tag in your v2.
Thanks,
