The touchpad of the ASUS laptops E403NA, X540NA, X541NA are not
responsive after suspend/resume. The following error message
shows after resume.
i2c_hid i2c-ELAN1200:00: failed to reset device.
On these laptops, the touchpad interrupt is connected via a GPIO
pin which is controlled by Intel pinctrl. After system resumes,
the GPIO is in ACPI mode and no longer works as an IRQ.
This commit saves the HOSTSW_OWN value during suspend, make sure
the HOSTSW_OWN mode remains the same after resume.
Signed-off-by: Chris Chiu <[email protected]>
---
drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c
index 8cda7b535b02..3930819049c4 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ struct intel_pad_context {
struct intel_community_context {
u32 *intmask;
+ u32 *hostown;
};
struct intel_pinctrl_context {
@@ -1284,7 +1285,7 @@ static int intel_pinctrl_pm_init(struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl)
for (i = 0; i < pctrl->ncommunities; i++) {
struct intel_community *community = &pctrl->communities[i];
- u32 *intmask;
+ u32 *intmask, *hostown;
intmask = devm_kcalloc(pctrl->dev, community->ngpps,
sizeof(*intmask), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -1292,6 +1293,13 @@ static int intel_pinctrl_pm_init(struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl)
return -ENOMEM;
communities[i].intmask = intmask;
+
+ hostown = devm_kcalloc(pctrl->dev, community->ngpps,
+ sizeof(*hostown), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!hostown)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ communities[i].hostown = hostown;
}
pctrl->context.pads = pads;
@@ -1503,6 +1511,10 @@ int intel_pinctrl_suspend(struct device *dev)
base = community->regs + community->ie_offset;
for (gpp = 0; gpp < community->ngpps; gpp++)
communities[i].intmask[gpp] = readl(base + gpp * 4);
+
+ base = community->regs + community->hostown_offset;
+ for (gpp = 0; gpp < community->ngpps; gpp++)
+ communities[i].hostown[gpp] = readl(base + gpp * 4);
}
return 0;
@@ -1529,6 +1541,28 @@ static void intel_gpio_irq_init(struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl)
}
}
+static u32
+intel_gpio_is_requested(struct gpio_chip *chip, int base, unsigned int size)
+{
+ u32 requested = 0;
+ unsigned int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
+ if (gpiochip_is_requested(chip, base + i))
+ requested |= BIT(i);
+
+ return requested;
+}
+
+static void
+intel_gpio_update_pad_mode(void __iomem *hostown, u32 mask, u32 value)
+{
+ u32 curr = readl(hostown);
+ u32 updated = (curr & ~mask) | (value & mask);
+
+ return writel(updated, hostown);
+}
+
int intel_pinctrl_resume(struct device *dev)
{
struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
@@ -1588,6 +1622,20 @@ int intel_pinctrl_resume(struct device *dev)
dev_dbg(dev, "restored mask %d/%u %#08x\n", i, gpp,
readl(base + gpp * 4));
}
+
+ base = community->regs + community->hostown_offset;
+ for (gpp = 0; gpp < community->ngpps; gpp++) {
+ const struct intel_padgroup *padgrp = &community->gpps[gpp];
+ u32 requested = 0;
+
+ if (padgrp->gpio_base < 0)
+ continue;
+
+ requested = intel_gpio_is_requested(&pctrl->chip,
+ padgrp->gpio_base, padgrp->size);
+ intel_gpio_update_pad_mode(base + gpp * 4, requested,
+ communities[i].hostown[gpp]);
+ }
}
return 0;
--
2.21.0
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 12:21:03PM +0800, Chris Chiu wrote:
> +static void
> +intel_gpio_update_pad_mode(void __iomem *hostown, u32 mask, u32 value)
> +{
> + u32 curr = readl(hostown);
> + u32 updated = (curr & ~mask) | (value & mask);
I think here we should first complain if the expected ownership is not
correct. Warning or info level probably enough.
> +
> + return writel(updated, hostown);
Also if the pin is not requested and not changed we should not touch the
register.
Otherwise this looks good to me.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:41:06AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 12:21:03PM +0800, Chris Chiu wrote:
> > +static void
static u32
(see below why)
> > +intel_gpio_update_pad_mode(void __iomem *hostown, u32 mask, u32 value)
> > +{
> > + u32 curr = readl(hostown);
> > + u32 updated = (curr & ~mask) | (value & mask);
>
> I think here we should first complain if the expected ownership is not
> correct. Warning or info level probably enough.
It is easy to achieve, something like
if ((value ^ saved) & requeted)
dev_warn(...);
See also below.
(I had mentioned this earlier)
> > + return writel(updated, hostown);
writel() is a void function, this is wrong. We need to return curr instead to
make above working to issue a warning message.
> Also if the pin is not requested and not changed we should not touch the
> register.
I don't think it brings any value here, if mask is 0 we will write back the
same value we read.
> Otherwise this looks good to me.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko