diff mbox series

[resend,2/3] gpiolib: acpi: Rename honor_wakeup option to ignore_wake, add extra quirk

Message ID 20200225102753.8351-3-hdegoede@redhat.com
State New
Headers show
Series [resend,1/3] gpiolib: acpi: Correct comment for HP x2 10 honor_wakeup quirk | expand

Commit Message

Hans de Goede Feb. 25, 2020, 10:27 a.m. UTC
Commit aa23ca3d98f7 ("gpiolib: acpi: Add honor_wakeup module-option +
quirk mechanism") was added to deal with spurious wakeups on one specific
model of the HP x2 10 series. In the mean time I have learned that there
are at least 3 variants of the HP x2 10 models:

Bay Trail SoC + AXP288 PMIC
Cherry Trail SoC + AXP288 PMIC
Cherry Trail SoC + TI PMIC

It turns out that the need to ignore wakeup on *all* ACPI GPIO event
handlers is unique to the Cherry Trail SoC + TI PMIC variant for which
the first quirk was added.

The 2 variants with the AXP288 PMIC only need to have wakeup disabled on
the embedded-controller event handler. We want to e.g. keep wakeup on the
event handler connected to the GPIO for the lid open/closed sensor.

Since the honor_wakeup option was added to be able to ignore wake events,
the name was perhaps not the best, this commit renames it to ignore_wake,
this version of the option has te following possible values:

values >= 0: a pin number on which to ignore wakeups, the ACPI wake flag
will still be honored on all other pins
value -1: auto: check for DMI quirk, otherwise honor the flag on all pins
value -2: all:  ignore the flag on all pins
value -3: none: honor wakeups on all pins

Note that it is possible for an ACPI table to request events on the same
pin-number on multiple GPIO controllers, in that case if such a pin-number
is used as ignore_wake value then wakeups will be ignored for that pin on
all GPIO controllers.

The existing quirk for the Cherry Trail + TI PMIC models is changed to
IGNORE_WAKE_ALL, keeping the current behavior; and a new quirk is added
for the Bay Trail + AXP288 model, ignoring wakeups on the EC GPIO pin only.

Fixes: aa23ca3d98f7 ("gpiolib: acpi: Add honor_wakeup module-option + quirk mechanism")
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Comments

andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com Feb. 25, 2020, 10:54 a.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:27:52AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Commit aa23ca3d98f7 ("gpiolib: acpi: Add honor_wakeup module-option +
> quirk mechanism") was added to deal with spurious wakeups on one specific
> model of the HP x2 10 series. In the mean time I have learned that there
> are at least 3 variants of the HP x2 10 models:
> 
> Bay Trail SoC + AXP288 PMIC
> Cherry Trail SoC + AXP288 PMIC
> Cherry Trail SoC + TI PMIC
> 
> It turns out that the need to ignore wakeup on *all* ACPI GPIO event
> handlers is unique to the Cherry Trail SoC + TI PMIC variant for which
> the first quirk was added.
> 
> The 2 variants with the AXP288 PMIC only need to have wakeup disabled on
> the embedded-controller event handler. We want to e.g. keep wakeup on the
> event handler connected to the GPIO for the lid open/closed sensor.
> 
> Since the honor_wakeup option was added to be able to ignore wake events,
> the name was perhaps not the best, this commit renames it to ignore_wake,
> this version of the option has te following possible values:
> 
> values >= 0: a pin number on which to ignore wakeups, the ACPI wake flag
> will still be honored on all other pins
> value -1: auto: check for DMI quirk, otherwise honor the flag on all pins
> value -2: all:  ignore the flag on all pins
> value -3: none: honor wakeups on all pins
> 
> Note that it is possible for an ACPI table to request events on the same
> pin-number on multiple GPIO controllers, in that case if such a pin-number
> is used as ignore_wake value then wakeups will be ignored for that pin on
> all GPIO controllers.
> 
> The existing quirk for the Cherry Trail + TI PMIC models is changed to
> IGNORE_WAKE_ALL, keeping the current behavior; and a new quirk is added
> for the Bay Trail + AXP288 model, ignoring wakeups on the EC GPIO pin only.

In general I'm fine with this, but looking to the history of your changes I'm
afraid that in future it will require more than one pin to be listed or
something like this.

...

> +static int ignore_wake = IGNORE_WAKE_AUTO;
> +module_param(ignore_wake, int, 0444);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(ignore_wake,
> +	"Ignore ACPI wake flag: x=ignore-for-pin-x, -1=auto, -2=all, -3=none");

Perhaps we may take list of pins or a bitmap (see bitmap list parsers API).

...

> -static int honor_wakeup = -1;
> -module_param(honor_wakeup, int, 0444);
> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(honor_wakeup,
> -		 "Honor the ACPI wake-capable flag: 0=no, 1=yes, -1=auto");

Isn't it now a part of ABI? I don't think we may remove it, though we may ignore it.
Or do something else.

(One of the reasons why I hate module parameters)

> +			ignore_wake = (s16)(quirks & QUIRK_IGNORE_WAKE_MASK);

It's casted to signed because ..?
Hans de Goede Feb. 25, 2020, 11:26 a.m. UTC | #2
Hi,

Thank you for looking at this.

On 2/25/20 11:54 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:27:52AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Commit aa23ca3d98f7 ("gpiolib: acpi: Add honor_wakeup module-option +
>> quirk mechanism") was added to deal with spurious wakeups on one specific
>> model of the HP x2 10 series. In the mean time I have learned that there
>> are at least 3 variants of the HP x2 10 models:
>>
>> Bay Trail SoC + AXP288 PMIC
>> Cherry Trail SoC + AXP288 PMIC
>> Cherry Trail SoC + TI PMIC
>>
>> It turns out that the need to ignore wakeup on *all* ACPI GPIO event
>> handlers is unique to the Cherry Trail SoC + TI PMIC variant for which
>> the first quirk was added.
>>
>> The 2 variants with the AXP288 PMIC only need to have wakeup disabled on
>> the embedded-controller event handler. We want to e.g. keep wakeup on the
>> event handler connected to the GPIO for the lid open/closed sensor.
>>
>> Since the honor_wakeup option was added to be able to ignore wake events,
>> the name was perhaps not the best, this commit renames it to ignore_wake,
>> this version of the option has te following possible values:
>>
>> values >= 0: a pin number on which to ignore wakeups, the ACPI wake flag
>> will still be honored on all other pins
>> value -1: auto: check for DMI quirk, otherwise honor the flag on all pins
>> value -2: all:  ignore the flag on all pins
>> value -3: none: honor wakeups on all pins
>>
>> Note that it is possible for an ACPI table to request events on the same
>> pin-number on multiple GPIO controllers, in that case if such a pin-number
>> is used as ignore_wake value then wakeups will be ignored for that pin on
>> all GPIO controllers.
>>
>> The existing quirk for the Cherry Trail + TI PMIC models is changed to
>> IGNORE_WAKE_ALL, keeping the current behavior; and a new quirk is added
>> for the Bay Trail + AXP288 model, ignoring wakeups on the EC GPIO pin only.
> 
> In general I'm fine with this, but looking to the history of your changes I'm
> afraid that in future it will require more than one pin to be listed or
> something like this.

The only models which need this so far are the weird HP X2 models which
use an external embedded controller with the tablet version of BYT / CHT
which is just al sorts of hacked together. Also see:

https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20200223153208.312005-1-hdegoede@redhat.com/T/#u

For other parts of the same device which also rather "hacked together"
HP made these models really really interesting...

With that said I cannot guarantee that we won't need something similar
for some other botched-up device.

> ...
> 
>> +static int ignore_wake = IGNORE_WAKE_AUTO;
>> +module_param(ignore_wake, int, 0444);
>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(ignore_wake,
>> +	"Ignore ACPI wake flag: x=ignore-for-pin-x, -1=auto, -2=all, -3=none");
> 
> Perhaps we may take list of pins or a bitmap (see bitmap list parsers API).

I guess you mean bitmap_parse_user / bitmap_print_to_pagebuf, the problem
is that for a more generic solution we need a wat to specify the
GPIO controller + the pin, so we would get a list of <name>,<pin> pairs
and then need to parse that, e.g. :

	gpiolib_acpi.ignore_wake=INT33FC:00,0x1c;INT33FC:01;0x12

I agree that if we really want to future proof this that then this is
the way we should go. This does mean adding a bunch of extra code for
parsing this, but I guess that would be better then my current hack.

Please let me know if you prefer going this route then I will respin
the patches to work this way.

> ...
> 
>> -static int honor_wakeup = -1;
>> -module_param(honor_wakeup, int, 0444);
>> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(honor_wakeup,
>> -		 "Honor the ACPI wake-capable flag: 0=no, 1=yes, -1=auto");
> 
> Isn't it now a part of ABI? I don't think we may remove it, though we may ignore it.
> Or do something else.
> 
> (One of the reasons why I hate module parameters)

I personally do not subscribe to the module parameters are part of the kernel ABI
crowd. I do not think Linus has ever stated something like that ?  For long existing
often used module parameters treating them as such makes a ton of sense, but this
one is quite new and AFAIK almost nobody is using it. So my vote would be to just
drop it. If we get push back we can easily restore it in some form.

> 
>> +			ignore_wake = (s16)(quirks & QUIRK_IGNORE_WAKE_MASK);
> 
> It's casted to signed because ..?

The high 32 bits of the quirk field is used for flags, and ignore_wake can
have a special negative value, so we need to sign extend the value stored
in the lower 16 bits of the quirk in case it is a negative value such as
IGNORE_WAKE_ALL.

Note this ugliness would go away if we switch to the string format for
the module param. Then the driver_data in the dmi matches would point
to a struct with a separate unsigned long flags field and a const char
*ignore_wake field...

Regards,

Hans
andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com Feb. 25, 2020, 12:34 p.m. UTC | #3
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:26:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 2/25/20 11:54 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:27:52AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:

...

> > In general I'm fine with this, but looking to the history of your changes I'm
> > afraid that in future it will require more than one pin to be listed or
> > something like this.
> 
> The only models which need this so far are the weird HP X2 models which
> use an external embedded controller with the tablet version of BYT / CHT
> which is just al sorts of hacked together. Also see:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20200223153208.312005-1-hdegoede@redhat.com/T/#u
> 
> For other parts of the same device which also rather "hacked together"
> HP made these models really really interesting...
> 
> With that said I cannot guarantee that we won't need something similar
> for some other botched-up device.

...

> > > +static int ignore_wake = IGNORE_WAKE_AUTO;
> > > +module_param(ignore_wake, int, 0444);
> > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(ignore_wake,
> > > +	"Ignore ACPI wake flag: x=ignore-for-pin-x, -1=auto, -2=all, -3=none");
> > 
> > Perhaps we may take list of pins or a bitmap (see bitmap list parsers API).
> 
> I guess you mean bitmap_parse_user / bitmap_print_to_pagebuf, the problem
> is that for a more generic solution we need a wat to specify the
> GPIO controller + the pin, so we would get a list of <name>,<pin> pairs
> and then need to parse that, e.g. :
> 
> 	gpiolib_acpi.ignore_wake=INT33FC:00,0x1c;INT33FC:01;0x12
> 
> I agree that if we really want to future proof this that then this is
> the way we should go. This does mean adding a bunch of extra code for
> parsing this, but I guess that would be better then my current hack.
> 
> Please let me know if you prefer going this route then I will respin
> the patches to work this way.

Let's do it as a list of pairs, but in slightly different format (I see some
potential to derive a generic parser, based on users described in
Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt), i.e.

	ignore_wake=pin:controller[,pin:controller[,...]]

...

> > > -MODULE_PARM_DESC(honor_wakeup,
> > > -		 "Honor the ACPI wake-capable flag: 0=no, 1=yes, -1=auto");

> > Isn't it now a part of ABI? I don't think we may remove it, though we may ignore it.
> > Or do something else.
> > 
> > (One of the reasons why I hate module parameters)
> 
> I personally do not subscribe to the module parameters are part of the kernel ABI
> crowd. I do not think Linus has ever stated something like that ?  For long existing
> often used module parameters treating them as such makes a ton of sense, but this
> one is quite new and AFAIK almost nobody is using it. So my vote would be to just
> drop it. If we get push back we can easily restore it in some form.

I'm fine with dropping it, perhaps add a phrase to the commit message about
(safe) removal.
andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com Feb. 25, 2020, 12:57 p.m. UTC | #4
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 02:34:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:26:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Let's do it as a list of pairs, but in slightly different format (I see some
> potential to derive a generic parser, based on users described in
> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt), i.e.
> 
> 	ignore_wake=pin:controller[,pin:controller[,...]]

Another possible format

	ignore_wake=controller@pin[;controller@pin[;...]]

The second one, while having less users, can be extended to have list of pins
of the same controller, like

	ignore_wake=controller@pin[:pin2:pin3][;controller@pin[:...][;...]]

(colon to match existing user, but can be, of course, changed)
Hans de Goede Feb. 28, 2020, 11:22 a.m. UTC | #5
Hi,

On 2/25/20 1:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 02:34:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:26:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
>> Let's do it as a list of pairs, but in slightly different format (I see some
>> potential to derive a generic parser, based on users described in
>> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt), i.e.
>>
>> 	ignore_wake=pin:controller[,pin:controller[,...]]
> 
> Another possible format
> 
> 	ignore_wake=controller@pin[;controller@pin[;...]]

I like this one, the other one with the pin first feels wrong, the pin is
part of the controller, not the other way around.

I will rework the patch series to use the ignore_wake=controller@pin format.

> The second one, while having less users, can be extended to have list of pins
> of the same controller, like
> 
> 	ignore_wake=controller@pin[:pin2:pin3][;controller@pin[:...][;...]]

I don't really see a need for this, the controller name can be repeated
in the unlikely case where more then one pin needs to be blacklisted
from wakeup and I would like to keep the parsing as KISS as possible.

I guess we can always add this later if people feel like adding it.

Regards,

Hans
andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com Feb. 28, 2020, 1:16 p.m. UTC | #6
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 12:22:45PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 2/25/20 1:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 02:34:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:26:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > 
> > > Let's do it as a list of pairs, but in slightly different format (I see some
> > > potential to derive a generic parser, based on users described in
> > > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt), i.e.
> > > 
> > > 	ignore_wake=pin:controller[,pin:controller[,...]]
> > 
> > Another possible format
> > 
> > 	ignore_wake=controller@pin[;controller@pin[;...]]
> 
> I like this one, the other one with the pin first feels wrong, the pin is
> part of the controller, not the other way around.

Yes, I agree.

> I will rework the patch series to use the ignore_wake=controller@pin format.
> 
> > The second one, while having less users, can be extended to have list of pins
> > of the same controller, like
> > 
> > 	ignore_wake=controller@pin[:pin2:pin3][;controller@pin[:...][;...]]
> 
> I don't really see a need for this, the controller name can be repeated
> in the unlikely case where more then one pin needs to be blacklisted
> from wakeup and I would like to keep the parsing as KISS as possible.
> 
> I guess we can always add this later if people feel like adding it.

Right.
Hans de Goede Feb. 29, 2020, 8:57 p.m. UTC | #7
Hi,

On 2/28/20 12:22 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2/25/20 1:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 02:34:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:26:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>
>>> Let's do it as a list of pairs, but in slightly different format (I see some
>>> potential to derive a generic parser, based on users described in
>>> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt), i.e.
>>>
>>>     ignore_wake=pin:controller[,pin:controller[,...]]
>>
>> Another possible format
>>
>>     ignore_wake=controller@pin[;controller@pin[;...]]
> 
> I like this one, the other one with the pin first feels wrong, the pin is
> part of the controller, not the other way around.
> 
> I will rework the patch series to use the ignore_wake=controller@pin format.

Just a quick note. I've changed the separator from ; to , for some reason
grub, at least as used in Fedora with Fedora's grub2 BLS (boot loader spec)
implementation does not like it when there is a ; in the kernel commandline.

I will also send an email about this to Fedora grub maintainer, but for
now it is easiest to just avoid the problem.

Regards,

Hans
andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com March 2, 2020, 9:30 a.m. UTC | #8
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 09:57:52PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 2/28/20 12:22 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > On 2/25/20 1:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 02:34:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:26:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Let's do it as a list of pairs, but in slightly different format (I see some
> > > > potential to derive a generic parser, based on users described in
> > > > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt), i.e.
> > > > 
> > > >     ignore_wake=pin:controller[,pin:controller[,...]]
> > > 
> > > Another possible format
> > > 
> > >     ignore_wake=controller@pin[;controller@pin[;...]]
> > 
> > I like this one, the other one with the pin first feels wrong, the pin is
> > part of the controller, not the other way around.
> > 
> > I will rework the patch series to use the ignore_wake=controller@pin format.
> 
> Just a quick note. I've changed the separator from ; to , for some reason
> grub, at least as used in Fedora with Fedora's grub2 BLS (boot loader spec)
> implementation does not like it when there is a ; in the kernel commandline.

Hmm... I think it would be harder then to have less possible formats in the
command line. Do you really need right now several pins to be listed?

If it's about testing, perhaps we may do it with other means.

> I will also send an email about this to Fedora grub maintainer, but for
> now it is easiest to just avoid the problem.

It's definitely bug in Grub due to existing kernel users with such format.
It means Grub is unable to support kernel command line in full.
Hans de Goede March 2, 2020, 9:46 a.m. UTC | #9
Hi,

On 3/2/20 10:30 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 09:57:52PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 2/28/20 12:22 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> On 2/25/20 1:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 02:34:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:26:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let's do it as a list of pairs, but in slightly different format (I see some
>>>>> potential to derive a generic parser, based on users described in
>>>>> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt), i.e.
>>>>>
>>>>>      ignore_wake=pin:controller[,pin:controller[,...]]
>>>>
>>>> Another possible format
>>>>
>>>>      ignore_wake=controller@pin[;controller@pin[;...]]
>>>
>>> I like this one, the other one with the pin first feels wrong, the pin is
>>> part of the controller, not the other way around.
>>>
>>> I will rework the patch series to use the ignore_wake=controller@pin format.
>>
>> Just a quick note. I've changed the separator from ; to , for some reason
>> grub, at least as used in Fedora with Fedora's grub2 BLS (boot loader spec)
>> implementation does not like it when there is a ; in the kernel commandline.
> 
> Hmm... I think it would be harder then to have less possible formats in the
> command line. Do you really need right now several pins to be listed?

Yes, the existing quirk for the HP X2 10 with Cherry Trail SoC + TI PMIC,
which currently ignores wakeups on all pins needs to ignore wakeup on 2 pins.

> If it's about testing, perhaps we may do it with other means.

Well it is possible to pass the ; by putting quotes around it, so we could
go with the ; if you insist, but it really makes life harder for

>> I will also send an email about this to Fedora grub maintainer, but for
>> now it is easiest to just avoid the problem.
> 
> It's definitely bug in Grub due to existing kernel users with such format.
> It means Grub is unable to support kernel command line in full.

So I discussed this with the Fedora Grub maintainer, he says the problem
exists in upstream grub2 too, grub2 uses a shell like command syntax
both in its config file and in interactive mode, so if you do e.g.:

linux /boot/vmlinuz root=/dev/sda1 gpiolib_acpi.ignore_wake=INT33FF:01@0;INT0002:00@2

Then grub will see the INT0002:00@2 as a new separate commaond, this should
work:

linux /boot/vmlinuz root=/dev/sda1 gpiolib_acpi.ignore_wake="INT33FF:01@0;INT0002:00@2"

But the recommended way to edit the cmdline is by editing /etc/default/grub and
then re-running grub2-mkconfig, which clears the quotes unless we escape them
and since grub2-mkconfig is shell script inside shell script inside shell script
I don't even want to think about how many times I need to escape the quotes.

TL;DR: Using ; in kernel commandline options makes life much harder for users
and as such is something which we should try to avoid.

I appreciate that you are trying to come up with a format for the option which
looks like existing options and I like the @ use, but using ; really is not a
good example to follow and IMHO that (not a good example / idea) trumps keeping
the syntax identical to an existing option.

Regards,

Hans
andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com March 2, 2020, 10:57 a.m. UTC | #10
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 10:46:57AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 3/2/20 10:30 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 09:57:52PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > On 2/28/20 12:22 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > On 2/25/20 1:57 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 02:34:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:26:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Let's do it as a list of pairs, but in slightly different format (I see some
> > > > > > potential to derive a generic parser, based on users described in
> > > > > > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt), i.e.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >      ignore_wake=pin:controller[,pin:controller[,...]]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Another possible format
> > > > > 
> > > > >      ignore_wake=controller@pin[;controller@pin[;...]]
> > > > 
> > > > I like this one, the other one with the pin first feels wrong, the pin is
> > > > part of the controller, not the other way around.
> > > > 
> > > > I will rework the patch series to use the ignore_wake=controller@pin format.
> > > 
> > > Just a quick note. I've changed the separator from ; to , for some reason
> > > grub, at least as used in Fedora with Fedora's grub2 BLS (boot loader spec)
> > > implementation does not like it when there is a ; in the kernel commandline.
> > 
> > Hmm... I think it would be harder then to have less possible formats in the
> > command line. Do you really need right now several pins to be listed?
> 
> Yes, the existing quirk for the HP X2 10 with Cherry Trail SoC + TI PMIC,
> which currently ignores wakeups on all pins needs to ignore wakeup on 2 pins.

Ouch.

> > If it's about testing, perhaps we may do it with other means.
> 
> Well it is possible to pass the ; by putting quotes around it, so we could
> go with the ; if you insist, but it really makes life harder for
> 
> > > I will also send an email about this to Fedora grub maintainer, but for
> > > now it is easiest to just avoid the problem.
> > 
> > It's definitely bug in Grub due to existing kernel users with such format.
> > It means Grub is unable to support kernel command line in full.
> 
> So I discussed this with the Fedora Grub maintainer, he says the problem
> exists in upstream grub2 too, grub2 uses a shell like command syntax
> both in its config file and in interactive mode, so if you do e.g.:
> 
> linux /boot/vmlinuz root=/dev/sda1 gpiolib_acpi.ignore_wake=INT33FF:01@0;INT0002:00@2
> 
> Then grub will see the INT0002:00@2 as a new separate commaond, this should
> work:
> 
> linux /boot/vmlinuz root=/dev/sda1 gpiolib_acpi.ignore_wake="INT33FF:01@0;INT0002:00@2"
> 
> But the recommended way to edit the cmdline is by editing /etc/default/grub and
> then re-running grub2-mkconfig, which clears the quotes unless we escape them
> and since grub2-mkconfig is shell script inside shell script inside shell script
> I don't even want to think about how many times I need to escape the quotes.

So, bug is still there...

> TL;DR: Using ; in kernel commandline options makes life much harder for users
> and as such is something which we should try to avoid.
> 
> I appreciate that you are trying to come up with a format for the option which
> looks like existing options and I like the @ use, but using ; really is not a
> good example to follow and IMHO that (not a good example / idea) trumps keeping
> the syntax identical to an existing option.

I see. Since we have to fix real problem, go ahead with comma, but please put
few words in the commit message why this format is being chosen.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
index bc96f28d4807..83103efa5862 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
@@ -21,19 +21,27 @@ 
 #include "gpiolib.h"
 #include "gpiolib-acpi.h"
 
-#define QUIRK_NO_EDGE_EVENTS_ON_BOOT		0x01l
-#define QUIRK_NO_WAKEUP				0x02l
+#define QUIRK_IGNORE_WAKE_MASK			GENMASK(15, 0)
+#define QUIRK_IGNORE_WAKE_SET			BIT(16)
+#define QUIRK_NO_EDGE_EVENTS_ON_BOOT		BIT(17)
+
+#define QUIRK_IGNORE_WAKE(x) \
+	(((x) & QUIRK_IGNORE_WAKE_MASK) | QUIRK_IGNORE_WAKE_SET)
+
+#define IGNORE_WAKE_AUTO			-1
+#define IGNORE_WAKE_ALL				-2
+#define IGNORE_WAKE_NONE			-3
+
+static int ignore_wake = IGNORE_WAKE_AUTO;
+module_param(ignore_wake, int, 0444);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(ignore_wake,
+	"Ignore ACPI wake flag: x=ignore-for-pin-x, -1=auto, -2=all, -3=none");
 
 static int run_edge_events_on_boot = -1;
 module_param(run_edge_events_on_boot, int, 0444);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(run_edge_events_on_boot,
 		 "Run edge _AEI event-handlers at boot: 0=no, 1=yes, -1=auto");
 
-static int honor_wakeup = -1;
-module_param(honor_wakeup, int, 0444);
-MODULE_PARM_DESC(honor_wakeup,
-		 "Honor the ACPI wake-capable flag: 0=no, 1=yes, -1=auto");
-
 /**
  * struct acpi_gpio_event - ACPI GPIO event handler data
  *
@@ -214,6 +222,7 @@  static acpi_status acpi_gpiochip_alloc_event(struct acpi_resource *ares,
 	irq_handler_t handler = NULL;
 	struct gpio_desc *desc;
 	int ret, pin, irq;
+	bool honor_wakeup;
 
 	if (!acpi_gpio_get_irq_resource(ares, &agpio))
 		return AE_OK;
@@ -286,6 +295,17 @@  static acpi_status acpi_gpiochip_alloc_event(struct acpi_resource *ares,
 		}
 	}
 
+	switch (ignore_wake) {
+	case IGNORE_WAKE_ALL:
+		honor_wakeup = false;
+		break;
+	case IGNORE_WAKE_NONE:
+		honor_wakeup = true;
+		break;
+	default:
+		honor_wakeup = ignore_wake != pin;
+	}
+
 	event->handle = evt_handle;
 	event->handler = handler;
 	event->irq = irq;
@@ -1363,7 +1383,22 @@  static const struct dmi_system_id gpiolib_acpi_quirks[] = {
 			DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "HP"),
 			DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "HP x2 Detachable 10-p0XX"),
 		},
-		.driver_data = (void *)QUIRK_NO_WAKEUP,
+		.driver_data = (void *)QUIRK_IGNORE_WAKE(IGNORE_WAKE_ALL),
+	},
+	{
+		/*
+		 * HP X2 10 models with Bay Trail SoC + AXP288 PMIC use an
+		 * external embedded-controller connected via I2C + an ACPI
+		 * GPIO event handler for pin 0x1c, causing spurious wakeups.
+		 * Unlike the Cherry Trail + TI PMIC models, we do want to
+		 * honor the ACPI wake flag on the other GPIOs.
+		 */
+		.matches = {
+			DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Hewlett-Packard"),
+			DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "HP Pavilion x2 Detachable"),
+			DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "815D"),
+		},
+		.driver_data = (void *)QUIRK_IGNORE_WAKE(0x1c),
 	},
 	{} /* Terminating entry */
 };
@@ -1384,11 +1419,11 @@  static int acpi_gpio_setup_params(void)
 			run_edge_events_on_boot = 1;
 	}
 
-	if (honor_wakeup < 0) {
-		if (quirks & QUIRK_NO_WAKEUP)
-			honor_wakeup = 0;
+	if (ignore_wake == IGNORE_WAKE_AUTO) {
+		if (quirks & QUIRK_IGNORE_WAKE_SET)
+			ignore_wake = (s16)(quirks & QUIRK_IGNORE_WAKE_MASK);
 		else
-			honor_wakeup = 1;
+			ignore_wake = IGNORE_WAKE_NONE;
 	}
 
 	return 0;