On 4/1/2025 7:45 AM, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 14:30, Mario Limonciello <superm1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here are tags for linking to your patch development to be picked up.
Link:
https://github.com/bazzite-org/patchwork/commit/95b93b2852718ee1e808c72e6b1836da4a95fc63
Co-developed-by: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I don't believe that b4 will pick these up, so I will send out a v2 with
them and mark this patch as superceded in patchwork so that Rafael
doesn't have to pull everything out of this thread manually.
FTR I don't have permission on patchwork for linux-acpi.
I sent out v2 though.
And to avoid having this conversation again, there is another Legion
Go S [3] patch you nacked and froze the testing for, so you could go
on the manhunt for the real cause of this one. But it will probably be
needed and you will find that as you get TDP controls going. So if you
want me to prepare that in a timely manner, because that one actually
needs rewriting to be posted, now is the time to say so.
Can you please propose what you have in mind on the mailing lists to
discuss? It's relatively expensive (in the unit of tech debt) to add
quirk infrastructure and so we need to make sure it is the right solution.
Derek is working on CPU coefficient tuning in a completely separate
driver. If there are issues with that, I would generally prefer the
fixes to be in that driver.
CPU coefficient tuning? If you mean the lenovo-wmi-driver, yes I will
try to make sure the quirk can be potentially added there, or in any
driver*.
Yes things like fPPT, sPPT, STAPM, STT limits.
The idea is to rewrite the patch series to just add a simple delay
field on the s2idle quirk struct. Then the biggest delay wins and gets
placed in ->begin. We have been using that series for ~6 months now,
and it turns out that having a delay system for every call is quite
pointless. But there are also situations where you might have a device
such as the Z13 Folio which looks like a USB device but listens to
s2idle notifications through ACPI, so the hid subsystem might need to
be able to inject a small delay there.
So the "general" problem with injecting delays is they are typically not
scalable as they're usually empirically measured and there is no
handshake with the firmware.
Say for example the EC has some hardcoded value of 200ms to wait for
something. IIRC the Linux timer infrastructure can be off by ~13%. So
if you put 175ms it might work sometimes. You get some reports of this,
so you extend it to 200ms. Great it works 100% of the time because the
old hardcoded value in the EC was 200ms.
Now say a new EC firmware comes out that for $REASONS changes it to
250ms. Your old empirically measured value stops working, spend a bunch
of cycles debugging it, measure the new one. You change it to 250ms,
but people with the old one have a problem now because the timing changed.
So now you have to add infrastructure to say what version of the
firmware gets what delay.
Then you find out there is another SKU of that model which needs a
different delay, so your complexity has ballooned.
What if all these "delays" were FW timeouts from failing to service an
interrupt? Or what if they were a flow problem like the device expected
you to issue a STOP command before a RESET command?
So we need to be /incredibly careful/ with delays and 100% they are the
right answer to a problem.
But rewriting the series will take 1-2 weeks, so I need a heads up now
if you need it for the Go S launch.
Specifically for the Z13 folio, since I brought that up, it seems like
all Aura devices including the Ally need a 300ms delay to fade their
backlights after sleep entry but before D3, but my testing has been
mixed here because KDE plays with the backlight while i test the
hid-asus series.
*for general device stability such as in the Go S, I'd have a slight
preference for a non-platform quirk though.
Antheas
Antheas
[1] https://github.com/bazzite-org/kernel-bazzite/releases/tag/6.12.12-201
[2] https://gitlab.com/evlaV/linux-integration/-/commit/6c5a3a96be9b061f07bf9a1bcc33156c932ddf67
[3] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3929#note_2764760
Not that I am content with it, which you might have noticed with my
absence in the amd/drm issue tracker.
So, was it the touchscreen after all? Did you verify this by tweaking
its firmware?
Yes it's the touchscreen causing this issue. It was confirmed by a
hardware rework.
Antheas
[1] https://github.com/bazzite-org/patchwork/commit/95b93b2852718ee1e808c72e6b1836da4a95fc63
Thanks,
Cc: Xino JS1 Ni <nijs1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Antheas Kapenekakis <lkml@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3929
Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/ec.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/ec.c b/drivers/acpi/ec.c
index 8db09d81918fb..3c5f34892734e 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/ec.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/ec.c
@@ -2301,6 +2301,34 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id acpi_ec_no_wakeup[] = {
DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_FAMILY, "103C_5336AN HP ZHAN 66 Pro"),
},
},
+ /*
+ * Lenovo Legion Go S; touchscreen blocks HW sleep when woken up from EC
+ * https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3929
+ */
+ {
+ .matches = {
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "LENOVO"),
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "83L3"),
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ .matches = {
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "LENOVO"),
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "83N6"),
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ .matches = {
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "LENOVO"),
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "83Q2"),
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ .matches = {
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "LENOVO"),
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "83Q3"),
+ }
+ },
{ },
};
--
2.43.0
