On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 9:11 PM Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 4/28/2025 2:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 8:23 PM Mario Limonciello > > <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 4/28/2025 4:51 AM, Marcus Bergo wrote: > >>> Yes, it does. > >>> > >> > >> OK thanks for confirming. Considering your finding with this patch > >> you've shared and knowing there is a timing dependency that delaying the > >> next s2idle cycle helps I do wonder if we should keep exploring. > >> > >> Rafael, do you have thoughts here? Specifically do you think it's worth > >> revisiting if b5539eb5ee70 was the correct move. > > > > Well, it was done for a reason that is explained in its changelog. I > > think that the problem addressed by it is genuine, isn't it? > > > I mean yes - of course. My inquiry was whether this should be the > default behavior or if it should have been a quirked behavior. I believe that it should be the default behavior because the EC GPE needs to be cleared after handling an EC event which effectively is what the suspend-to-idle code does. > I don't have a good sense for the rest of the ecosystem what the impacts > would really be at flipping it. Would it be worth adding a module > parameter debug knob and survey what happens on a wide variety of machines? Maybe, if you suspect that this might be a widespread issue.
