The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake
IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake
and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling
dev_pm_set_wake_irq.
i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device
tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this
change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls
dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver.
I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW
defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source
was the touchpad IRQ GPIO.
Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <[email protected]>
---
drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c | 12 ++++--------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
index e1758d5ffe4218..7d997d2b56436b 100644
--- a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
+++ b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
#include <linux/jiffies.h>
#include <linux/completion.h>
#include <linux/of.h>
+#include <linux/pm_wakeirq.h>
#include <linux/property.h>
#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
#include <asm/unaligned.h>
@@ -86,8 +87,6 @@ struct elan_tp_data {
u16 fw_page_size;
u32 fw_signature_address;
- bool irq_wake;
-
u8 min_baseline;
u8 max_baseline;
bool baseline_ready;
@@ -1337,8 +1336,10 @@ static int elan_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
* Systems using device tree should set up wakeup via DTS,
* the rest will configure device as wakeup source by default.
*/
- if (!dev->of_node)
+ if (!dev->of_node) {
device_init_wakeup(dev, true);
+ dev_pm_set_wake_irq(dev, client->irq);
+ }
return 0;
}
@@ -1362,8 +1363,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused elan_suspend(struct device *dev)
if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) {
ret = elan_sleep(data);
- /* Enable wake from IRQ */
- data->irq_wake = (enable_irq_wake(client->irq) == 0);
} else {
ret = elan_set_power(data, false);
if (ret)
@@ -1394,9 +1393,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused elan_resume(struct device *dev)
dev_err(dev, "error %d enabling regulator\n", error);
goto err;
}
- } else if (data->irq_wake) {
- disable_irq_wake(client->irq);
- data->irq_wake = false;
}
error = elan_set_power(data, true);
--
2.37.2.672.g94769d06f0-goog
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 AM Raul E Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake
> IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake
> and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling
> dev_pm_set_wake_irq.
>
> i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device
> tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this
> change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls
> dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver.
>
> I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW
> defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source
> was the touchpad IRQ GPIO.
>
> Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <[email protected]>
I like this a lot, but the assumption in the wakeirq code is that the
IRQ in question will be dedicated for signaling wakeup. Does it hold
here?
> ---
>
> drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c | 12 ++++--------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> index e1758d5ffe4218..7d997d2b56436b 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> #include <linux/jiffies.h>
> #include <linux/completion.h>
> #include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_wakeirq.h>
> #include <linux/property.h>
> #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> #include <asm/unaligned.h>
> @@ -86,8 +87,6 @@ struct elan_tp_data {
> u16 fw_page_size;
> u32 fw_signature_address;
>
> - bool irq_wake;
> -
> u8 min_baseline;
> u8 max_baseline;
> bool baseline_ready;
> @@ -1337,8 +1336,10 @@ static int elan_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> * Systems using device tree should set up wakeup via DTS,
> * the rest will configure device as wakeup source by default.
> */
> - if (!dev->of_node)
> + if (!dev->of_node) {
> device_init_wakeup(dev, true);
> + dev_pm_set_wake_irq(dev, client->irq);
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -1362,8 +1363,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused elan_suspend(struct device *dev)
>
> if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) {
> ret = elan_sleep(data);
> - /* Enable wake from IRQ */
> - data->irq_wake = (enable_irq_wake(client->irq) == 0);
> } else {
> ret = elan_set_power(data, false);
> if (ret)
> @@ -1394,9 +1393,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused elan_resume(struct device *dev)
> dev_err(dev, "error %d enabling regulator\n", error);
> goto err;
> }
> - } else if (data->irq_wake) {
> - disable_irq_wake(client->irq);
> - data->irq_wake = false;
> }
>
> error = elan_set_power(data, true);
> --
> 2.37.2.672.g94769d06f0-goog
>
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:01 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 AM Raul E Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake
> > IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake
> > and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling
> > dev_pm_set_wake_irq.
> >
> > i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device
> > tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this
> > change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls
> > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver.
> >
> > I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW
> > defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source
> > was the touchpad IRQ GPIO.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <[email protected]>
>
> I like this a lot, but the assumption in the wakeirq code is that the
> IRQ in question will be dedicated for signaling wakeup. Does it hold
> here?
The wakeirq code defines two methods: `dev_pm_set_wake_irq` and
`dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq`.
The latter is used when you have a dedicated wakeup signal. In this
driver it's currently assumed
that the IRQ and the wake IRQ are the same, so I used `dev_pm_set_wake_irq`.
This change in theory also fixes a bug where you define a dedicated
wake irq in DT, but
then the driver enables the `client->irq` as a wake source. In
practice this doesn't happen
since the elan touchpads only have a single IRQ line.
>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c | 12 ++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> > index e1758d5ffe4218..7d997d2b56436b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> > #include <linux/jiffies.h>
> > #include <linux/completion.h>
> > #include <linux/of.h>
> > +#include <linux/pm_wakeirq.h>
> > #include <linux/property.h>
> > #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> > #include <asm/unaligned.h>
> > @@ -86,8 +87,6 @@ struct elan_tp_data {
> > u16 fw_page_size;
> > u32 fw_signature_address;
> >
> > - bool irq_wake;
> > -
> > u8 min_baseline;
> > u8 max_baseline;
> > bool baseline_ready;
> > @@ -1337,8 +1336,10 @@ static int elan_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > * Systems using device tree should set up wakeup via DTS,
> > * the rest will configure device as wakeup source by default.
> > */
> > - if (!dev->of_node)
> > + if (!dev->of_node) {
> > device_init_wakeup(dev, true);
> > + dev_pm_set_wake_irq(dev, client->irq);
> > + }
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -1362,8 +1363,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused elan_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >
> > if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) {
> > ret = elan_sleep(data);
> > - /* Enable wake from IRQ */
> > - data->irq_wake = (enable_irq_wake(client->irq) == 0);
> > } else {
> > ret = elan_set_power(data, false);
> > if (ret)
> > @@ -1394,9 +1393,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused elan_resume(struct device *dev)
> > dev_err(dev, "error %d enabling regulator\n", error);
> > goto err;
> > }
> > - } else if (data->irq_wake) {
> > - disable_irq_wake(client->irq);
> > - data->irq_wake = false;
> > }
> >
> > error = elan_set_power(data, true);
> > --
> > 2.37.2.672.g94769d06f0-goog
> >
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 8:14 PM Raul Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:01 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 AM Raul E Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake
> > > IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake
> > > and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling
> > > dev_pm_set_wake_irq.
> > >
> > > i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device
> > > tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this
> > > change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls
> > > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver.
> > >
> > > I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW
> > > defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source
> > > was the touchpad IRQ GPIO.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <[email protected]>
> >
>
>
> > I like this a lot, but the assumption in the wakeirq code is that the
> > IRQ in question will be dedicated for signaling wakeup. Does it hold
> > here?
>
> The wakeirq code defines two methods: `dev_pm_set_wake_irq` and
> `dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq`.
> The latter is used when you have a dedicated wakeup signal. In this
> driver it's currently assumed
> that the IRQ and the wake IRQ are the same, so I used `dev_pm_set_wake_irq`.
>
> This change in theory also fixes a bug where you define a dedicated
> wake irq in DT, but
> then the driver enables the `client->irq` as a wake source. In
> practice this doesn't happen
> since the elan touchpads only have a single IRQ line.
OK, thanks!
Please feel free to add
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
to the patch.
> >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c | 12 ++++--------
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> > > index e1758d5ffe4218..7d997d2b56436b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> > > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/jiffies.h>
> > > #include <linux/completion.h>
> > > #include <linux/of.h>
> > > +#include <linux/pm_wakeirq.h>
> > > #include <linux/property.h>
> > > #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> > > #include <asm/unaligned.h>
> > > @@ -86,8 +87,6 @@ struct elan_tp_data {
> > > u16 fw_page_size;
> > > u32 fw_signature_address;
> > >
> > > - bool irq_wake;
> > > -
> > > u8 min_baseline;
> > > u8 max_baseline;
> > > bool baseline_ready;
> > > @@ -1337,8 +1336,10 @@ static int elan_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > > * Systems using device tree should set up wakeup via DTS,
> > > * the rest will configure device as wakeup source by default.
> > > */
> > > - if (!dev->of_node)
> > > + if (!dev->of_node) {
> > > device_init_wakeup(dev, true);
> > > + dev_pm_set_wake_irq(dev, client->irq);
> > > + }
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > @@ -1362,8 +1363,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused elan_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > >
> > > if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) {
> > > ret = elan_sleep(data);
> > > - /* Enable wake from IRQ */
> > > - data->irq_wake = (enable_irq_wake(client->irq) == 0);
> > > } else {
> > > ret = elan_set_power(data, false);
> > > if (ret)
> > > @@ -1394,9 +1393,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused elan_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > dev_err(dev, "error %d enabling regulator\n", error);
> > > goto err;
> > > }
> > > - } else if (data->irq_wake) {
> > > - disable_irq_wake(client->irq);
> > > - data->irq_wake = false;
> > > }
> > >
> > > error = elan_set_power(data, true);
> > > --
> > > 2.37.2.672.g94769d06f0-goog
> > >
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:01:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 AM Raul E Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake
> > IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake
> > and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling
> > dev_pm_set_wake_irq.
> >
> > i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device
> > tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this
> > change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls
> > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver.
> >
> > I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW
> > defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source
> > was the touchpad IRQ GPIO.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <[email protected]>
>
> I like this a lot [...]
I also like this a lot, but this assumes that firmware has correct
settings for the interrupt... Unfortunately it is not always the case
and I see that at least Chrome OS devices, such as glados line (cave, chell, sentry,
ect) do not mark interrupt as wakeup:
src/mainboard/google/glados/variants/chell/overridetree.cb
chip drivers/i2c/generic
register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
register "wake" = "GPE0_DW0_05"
device i2c 15 on end
I assume it should have been ACPI_IRQ_WAKE_LEVEL_LOW for the interrupt
to be marked as wakeup.
(we do correctly mark GPE as wakeup).
So we need to do something about older devices....
--
Dmitry
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:12:41PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:01:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 AM Raul E Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake
> > > IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake
> > > and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling
> > > dev_pm_set_wake_irq.
> > >
> > > i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device
> > > tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this
> > > change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls
> > > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver.
> > >
> > > I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW
> > > defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source
> > > was the touchpad IRQ GPIO.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <[email protected]>
> >
> > I like this a lot [...]
>
> I also like this a lot, but this assumes that firmware has correct
> settings for the interrupt... Unfortunately it is not always the case
> and I see that at least Chrome OS devices, such as glados line (cave, chell, sentry,
> ect) do not mark interrupt as wakeup:
>
> src/mainboard/google/glados/variants/chell/overridetree.cb
>
> chip drivers/i2c/generic
> register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
> register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
> register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
> register "wake" = "GPE0_DW0_05"
> device i2c 15 on end
>
> I assume it should have been ACPI_IRQ_WAKE_LEVEL_LOW for the interrupt
> to be marked as wakeup.
>
> (we do correctly mark GPE as wakeup).
>
> So we need to do something about older devices....
After re-reading the patch I believe this comment is more applicable to
the followup patch to elan_i2c, not this one, which is fine on its own.
Acked-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 PM Dmitry Torokhov
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:12:41PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:01:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 AM Raul E Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake
> > > > IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake
> > > > and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling
> > > > dev_pm_set_wake_irq.
> > > >
> > > > i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device
> > > > tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this
> > > > change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls
> > > > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver.
> > > >
> > > > I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW
> > > > defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source
> > > > was the touchpad IRQ GPIO.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > I like this a lot [...]
> >
> > I also like this a lot, but this assumes that firmware has correct
> > settings for the interrupt... Unfortunately it is not always the case
> > and I see that at least Chrome OS devices, such as glados line (cave, chell, sentry,
> > ect) do not mark interrupt as wakeup:
> >
> > src/mainboard/google/glados/variants/chell/overridetree.cb
> >
> > chip drivers/i2c/generic
> > register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
> > register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
> > register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
> > register "wake" = "GPE0_DW0_05"
> > device i2c 15 on end
> >
So the above entry specifies the `wake` register. This generates an
ACPI _PRW resource. The patch series will actually fix devices like
this. Today without this patch series we get two wake events for a
device. The ACPI wake GPE specified by the _PRW resource, and the
erroneous GPIO wake event. But you bring up a good point.
I wrote a quick and dirty script (https://0paste.com/391849) to parse
the coreboot device tree entries. Open source firmware is great isn't
it? ;)
$ find src/mainboard/google/ -iname '*.cb' | xargs awk -f touch.awk --
src/mainboard/google/eve/devicetree.cb
1
chip drivers/i2c/hid
register "generic.hid" = ""ACPI0C50""
register "generic.desc" = ""Touchpad""
register "generic.irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
register "hid_desc_reg_offset" = "0x1"
device i2c 49 on end
end
src/mainboard/google/eve/devicetree.cb
1
chip drivers/i2c/generic
register "hid" = ""GOOG0008""
register "desc" = ""Touchpad EC Interface""
device i2c 1e on end
end
src/mainboard/google/drallion/variants/drallion/devicetree.cb
1
chip drivers/i2c/generic
register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_EDGE_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
register "probed" = "1"
device i2c 2c on end
end
src/mainboard/google/drallion/variants/drallion/devicetree.cb
1
chip drivers/i2c/generic
register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_EDGE_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
register "probed" = "1"
device i2c 15 on end
end
src/mainboard/google/sarien/variants/arcada/devicetree.cb
1
chip drivers/i2c/generic
register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_EDGE_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
register "probed" = "1"
device i2c 2c on end
end
src/mainboard/google/sarien/variants/arcada/devicetree.cb
1
chip drivers/i2c/hid
register "generic.hid" = ""PNP0C50""
register "generic.desc" = ""Cirque Touchpad""
register "generic.irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
register "generic.probed" = "1"
register "hid_desc_reg_offset" = "0x20"
device i2c 2a on end
end
src/mainboard/google/sarien/variants/sarien/devicetree.cb
1
chip drivers/i2c/generic
register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_EDGE_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
register "probed" = "1"
device i2c 2c on end
end
Total Touchpad: 202
Total Wake: 195
Out of all the touchpads defined on ChromeOS it looks like only 4
devices are missing a wake declaration. I omitted touchpanels because
ChromeOS doesn't use those as a wake source. chromeos_laptop.c already
defines some devices with i2c board_info and it sets the
`I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag. I'm not sure if this is actually working as
expected. `i2c_device_probe` requires a `wakeup` irq to be present in
the device tree if the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag is set, but I'm assuming
the device tree was missing wake attributes.
Anyway, patches 6, and 7 are the ones that drop the legacy behavior. I
can figure out how to add the above boards to chromeos_laptop.c and
get the wake attribute plumbed, or I can add something directly to the
elan_i2c_core, etc so others can add overrides for their boards there.
I'll also send out CLs to fix the device tree configs (not that we
would run a FW qual just for this change).
> > I assume it should have been ACPI_IRQ_WAKE_LEVEL_LOW for the interrupt
> > to be marked as wakeup.
> >
> > (we do correctly mark GPE as wakeup).
> >
> > So we need to do something about older devices....
>
> After re-reading the patch I believe this comment is more applicable to
> the followup patch to elan_i2c, not this one, which is fine on its own.
>
> Acked-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Dmitry
* Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> [220831 18:35]:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 8:14 PM Raul Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:01 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 AM Raul E Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake
> > > > IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake
> > > > and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling
> > > > dev_pm_set_wake_irq.
> > > >
> > > > i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device
> > > > tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this
> > > > change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls
> > > > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver.
> > > >
> > > > I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW
> > > > defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source
> > > > was the touchpad IRQ GPIO.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <[email protected]>
> > >
> >
> >
> > > I like this a lot, but the assumption in the wakeirq code is that the
> > > IRQ in question will be dedicated for signaling wakeup. Does it hold
> > > here?
> >
> > The wakeirq code defines two methods: `dev_pm_set_wake_irq` and
> > `dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq`.
> > The latter is used when you have a dedicated wakeup signal. In this
> > driver it's currently assumed
> > that the IRQ and the wake IRQ are the same, so I used `dev_pm_set_wake_irq`.
> >
> > This change in theory also fixes a bug where you define a dedicated
> > wake irq in DT, but
> > then the driver enables the `client->irq` as a wake source. In
> > practice this doesn't happen
> > since the elan touchpads only have a single IRQ line.
>
> OK, thanks!
>
> Please feel free to add
>
> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
>
> to the patch.
Looks good to me too:
Reviewed-by: Tony Lindgren <[email protected]>
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:17:23PM -0600, Raul Rangel wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 PM Dmitry Torokhov
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:12:41PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:01:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 AM Raul E Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake
> > > > > IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake
> > > > > and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling
> > > > > dev_pm_set_wake_irq.
> > > > >
> > > > > i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device
> > > > > tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this
> > > > > change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls
> > > > > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW
> > > > > defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source
> > > > > was the touchpad IRQ GPIO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > I like this a lot [...]
> > >
>
> > > I also like this a lot, but this assumes that firmware has correct
> > > settings for the interrupt... Unfortunately it is not always the case
> > > and I see that at least Chrome OS devices, such as glados line (cave, chell, sentry,
> > > ect) do not mark interrupt as wakeup:
> > >
> > > src/mainboard/google/glados/variants/chell/overridetree.cb
> > >
> > > chip drivers/i2c/generic
> > > register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
> > > register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
> > > register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
> > > register "wake" = "GPE0_DW0_05"
> > > device i2c 15 on end
> > >
>
> So the above entry specifies the `wake` register. This generates an
> ACPI _PRW resource. The patch series will actually fix devices like
> this. Today without this patch series we get two wake events for a
> device. The ACPI wake GPE specified by the _PRW resource, and the
> erroneous GPIO wake event. But you bring up a good point.
Does this mean that the example that we currently have in coreboot
documentation (Documentation/acpi/devicetree.md) is not correct:
device pci 15.0 on
chip drivers/i2c/generic
register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_WAKE_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_A21_IRQ)"
register "wake" = "GPE0_DW0_21"
device i2c 15 on end
end
end # I2C #0
Doesn't in say that we have both GpioIrq and GPE wakeup methods defined
for the same device?
>
> I wrote a quick and dirty script (https://0paste.com/391849) to parse
> the coreboot device tree entries. Open source firmware is great isn't
> it? ;)
>
> $ find src/mainboard/google/ -iname '*.cb' | xargs awk -f touch.awk --
> src/mainboard/google/eve/devicetree.cb
...
> src/mainboard/google/sarien/variants/sarien/devicetree.cb
> 1
> chip drivers/i2c/generic
> register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
> register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
> register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_EDGE_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
> register "probed" = "1"
> device i2c 2c on end
> end
> Total Touchpad: 202
> Total Wake: 195
>
> Out of all the touchpads defined on ChromeOS it looks like only 4
> devices are missing a wake declaration. I omitted touchpanels because
> ChromeOS doesn't use those as a wake source. chromeos_laptop.c already
> defines some devices with i2c board_info and it sets the
> `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag. I'm not sure if this is actually working as
> expected. `i2c_device_probe` requires a `wakeup` irq to be present in
> the device tree if the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag is set, but I'm assuming
No it does not. If there is no wakeup IRQ defined of_irq_get_byname()
will return an error and we'll take the "else if (client->irq > 0)"
branch and will set up client->irq as the wakeup irq.
> the device tree was missing wake attributes.
>
> Anyway, patches 6, and 7 are the ones that drop the legacy behavior. I
> can figure out how to add the above boards to chromeos_laptop.c and
> get the wake attribute plumbed, or I can add something directly to the
> elan_i2c_core, etc so others can add overrides for their boards there.
> I'll also send out CLs to fix the device tree configs (not that we
> would run a FW qual just for this change).
My preference is to limit board-specific hacks in drivers if we can, so
adding missing properties to chromeos_laptop.c would be my preference.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 11:07 PM Dmitry Torokhov
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:17:23PM -0600, Raul Rangel wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 PM Dmitry Torokhov
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:12:41PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:01:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 AM Raul E Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake
> > > > > > IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake
> > > > > > and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling
> > > > > > dev_pm_set_wake_irq.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device
> > > > > > tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this
> > > > > > change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls
> > > > > > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW
> > > > > > defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source
> > > > > > was the touchpad IRQ GPIO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > I like this a lot [...]
> > > >
> >
> > > > I also like this a lot, but this assumes that firmware has correct
> > > > settings for the interrupt... Unfortunately it is not always the case
> > > > and I see that at least Chrome OS devices, such as glados line (cave, chell, sentry,
> > > > ect) do not mark interrupt as wakeup:
> > > >
> > > > src/mainboard/google/glados/variants/chell/overridetree.cb
> > > >
> > > > chip drivers/i2c/generic
> > > > register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
> > > > register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
> > > > register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
> > > > register "wake" = "GPE0_DW0_05"
> > > > device i2c 15 on end
> > > >
> >
> > So the above entry specifies the `wake` register. This generates an
> > ACPI _PRW resource. The patch series will actually fix devices like
> > this. Today without this patch series we get two wake events for a
> > device. The ACPI wake GPE specified by the _PRW resource, and the
> > erroneous GPIO wake event. But you bring up a good point.
>
> Does this mean that the example that we currently have in coreboot
> documentation (Documentation/acpi/devicetree.md) is not correct:
>
> device pci 15.0 on
> chip drivers/i2c/generic
> register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
> register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
> register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_WAKE_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_A21_IRQ)"
> register "wake" = "GPE0_DW0_21"
> device i2c 15 on end
> end
> end # I2C #0
>
> Doesn't in say that we have both GpioIrq and GPE wakeup methods defined
> for the same device?
Hrmm, yeah that is wrong and will cause duplicate wake events for the
device. I'll push a CL to clean up the documentation.
>
> >
> > I wrote a quick and dirty script (https://0paste.com/391849) to parse
> > the coreboot device tree entries. Open source firmware is great isn't
> > it? ;)
> >
> > $ find src/mainboard/google/ -iname '*.cb' | xargs awk -f touch.awk --
> > src/mainboard/google/eve/devicetree.cb
>
> ...
>
> > src/mainboard/google/sarien/variants/sarien/devicetree.cb
> > 1
> > chip drivers/i2c/generic
> > register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
> > register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
> > register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_EDGE_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
> > register "probed" = "1"
> > device i2c 2c on end
> > end
> > Total Touchpad: 202
> > Total Wake: 195
> >
> > Out of all the touchpads defined on ChromeOS it looks like only 4
> > devices are missing a wake declaration. I omitted touchpanels because
> > ChromeOS doesn't use those as a wake source. chromeos_laptop.c already
> > defines some devices with i2c board_info and it sets the
> > `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag. I'm not sure if this is actually working as
> > expected. `i2c_device_probe` requires a `wakeup` irq to be present in
> > the device tree if the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag is set, but I'm assuming
>
> No it does not. If there is no wakeup IRQ defined of_irq_get_byname()
> will return an error and we'll take the "else if (client->irq > 0)"
> branch and will set up client->irq as the wakeup irq.
>
> > the device tree was missing wake attributes.
Oh thanks for pointing that out. I might refactor patch #4 to just set
the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag when `acpi_wake_capable` is true.
>
> >
> > Anyway, patches 6, and 7 are the ones that drop the legacy behavior. I
> > can figure out how to add the above boards to chromeos_laptop.c and
> > get the wake attribute plumbed, or I can add something directly to the
> > elan_i2c_core, etc so others can add overrides for their boards there.
> > I'll also send out CLs to fix the device tree configs (not that we
> > would run a FW qual just for this change).
>
> My preference is to limit board-specific hacks in drivers if we can, so
> adding missing properties to chromeos_laptop.c would be my preference.
How should we handle non chromeos boards?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Dmitry
Thanks!
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:18:49AM -0600, Raul Rangel wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 11:07 PM Dmitry Torokhov
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:17:23PM -0600, Raul Rangel wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 PM Dmitry Torokhov
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:12:41PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:01:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:16 AM Raul E Rangel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Elan I2C touchpad driver is currently manually managing the wake
> > > > > > > IRQ. This change removes the explicit enable_irq_wake/disable_irq_wake
> > > > > > > and instead relies on the PM subsystem. This is done by calling
> > > > > > > dev_pm_set_wake_irq.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > i2c_device_probe already calls dev_pm_set_wake_irq when using device
> > > > > > > tree, so it's only required when using ACPI. The net result is that this
> > > > > > > change should be a no-op. i2c_device_remove also already calls
> > > > > > > dev_pm_clear_wake_irq, so we don't need to do that in this driver.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I tested this on an ACPI system where the touchpad doesn't have _PRW
> > > > > > > defined. I verified I can still wake the system and that the wake source
> > > > > > > was the touchpad IRQ GPIO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Raul E Rangel <[email protected]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I like this a lot [...]
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > I also like this a lot, but this assumes that firmware has correct
> > > > > settings for the interrupt... Unfortunately it is not always the case
> > > > > and I see that at least Chrome OS devices, such as glados line (cave, chell, sentry,
> > > > > ect) do not mark interrupt as wakeup:
> > > > >
> > > > > src/mainboard/google/glados/variants/chell/overridetree.cb
> > > > >
> > > > > chip drivers/i2c/generic
> > > > > register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
> > > > > register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
> > > > > register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
> > > > > register "wake" = "GPE0_DW0_05"
> > > > > device i2c 15 on end
> > > > >
> > >
> > > So the above entry specifies the `wake` register. This generates an
> > > ACPI _PRW resource. The patch series will actually fix devices like
> > > this. Today without this patch series we get two wake events for a
> > > device. The ACPI wake GPE specified by the _PRW resource, and the
> > > erroneous GPIO wake event. But you bring up a good point.
> >
>
>
> > Does this mean that the example that we currently have in coreboot
> > documentation (Documentation/acpi/devicetree.md) is not correct:
> >
> > device pci 15.0 on
> > chip drivers/i2c/generic
> > register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
> > register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
> > register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_WAKE_LEVEL_LOW(GPP_A21_IRQ)"
> > register "wake" = "GPE0_DW0_21"
> > device i2c 15 on end
> > end
> > end # I2C #0
> >
> > Doesn't in say that we have both GpioIrq and GPE wakeup methods defined
> > for the same device?
>
> Hrmm, yeah that is wrong and will cause duplicate wake events for the
> device. I'll push a CL to clean up the documentation.
Thanks. I think we also need to clean up our ADL boards (and likely
more).
>
> >
> > >
> > > I wrote a quick and dirty script (https://0paste.com/391849) to parse
> > > the coreboot device tree entries. Open source firmware is great isn't
> > > it? ;)
> > >
> > > $ find src/mainboard/google/ -iname '*.cb' | xargs awk -f touch.awk --
> > > src/mainboard/google/eve/devicetree.cb
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > src/mainboard/google/sarien/variants/sarien/devicetree.cb
> > > 1
> > > chip drivers/i2c/generic
> > > register "hid" = ""ELAN0000""
> > > register "desc" = ""ELAN Touchpad""
> > > register "irq" = "ACPI_IRQ_EDGE_LOW(GPP_B3_IRQ)"
> > > register "probed" = "1"
> > > device i2c 2c on end
> > > end
> > > Total Touchpad: 202
> > > Total Wake: 195
> > >
> > > Out of all the touchpads defined on ChromeOS it looks like only 4
> > > devices are missing a wake declaration. I omitted touchpanels because
> > > ChromeOS doesn't use those as a wake source. chromeos_laptop.c already
> > > defines some devices with i2c board_info and it sets the
> > > `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag. I'm not sure if this is actually working as
> > > expected. `i2c_device_probe` requires a `wakeup` irq to be present in
> > > the device tree if the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag is set, but I'm assuming
> >
> > No it does not. If there is no wakeup IRQ defined of_irq_get_byname()
> > will return an error and we'll take the "else if (client->irq > 0)"
> > branch and will set up client->irq as the wakeup irq.
> >
> > > the device tree was missing wake attributes.
>
> Oh thanks for pointing that out. I might refactor patch #4 to just set
> the `I2C_CLIENT_WAKE` flag when `acpi_wake_capable` is true.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, patches 6, and 7 are the ones that drop the legacy behavior. I
> > > can figure out how to add the above boards to chromeos_laptop.c and
> > > get the wake attribute plumbed, or I can add something directly to the
> > > elan_i2c_core, etc so others can add overrides for their boards there.
> > > I'll also send out CLs to fix the device tree configs (not that we
> > > would run a FW qual just for this change).
> >
> > My preference is to limit board-specific hacks in drivers if we can, so
> > adding missing properties to chromeos_laptop.c would be my preference.
>
> How should we handle non chromeos boards?
My preference would be to shove something like chromeos_laptop into
drivers/platform/x86... Something like
drivers/platform/x86/x86-android-tablets.c
Thanks.
--
Dmitry