On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 03:14:40PM +0000, Limonciello, Mario wrote: > On 6/25/25 10:10 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 03:02:18PM +0000, Limonciello, Mario wrote: > >> On 6/25/25 9:41 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote: > >>> On 6/25/25 9:31 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>>> On 25-Jun-25 4:09 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote: > >>>>> On 6/25/25 4:09 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>>>>> On 24-Jun-25 10:22 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote: ... > >>>> Ok, so specifically the gpiod_set_debounce() call with 50 ms > >>>> done by gpio_keys.c is the problem I guess? > >>> > >>> Yep. > >>> > >>>> So amd_gpio_set_debounce() does accept the 50 ms debounce > >>>> passed to it by gpio_keys.c as a valid value and then setting > >>>> that breaks the wake from suspend? > >>> > >>> That's right. > > > >>>>> Also comparing the GPIO register in Windows (where things work) > >>>>> Windows never programs a debounce. > >>>> > >>>> So maybe the windows ACPI0011 driver always uses a software- > >>>> debounce for the buttons? Windows not debouncing the mechanical > >>>> switches at all seems unlikely. > >>>> > >>>> I think the best way to fix this might be to add a no-hw-debounce > >>>> flag to the data passed from soc_button_array.c to gpio_keys.c > >>>> and have gpio_keys.c not call gpiod_set_debounce() when the > >>>> no-hw-debounce flag is set. > >>>> > >>>> I've checked and both on Bay Trail and Cherry Trail devices > >>>> where soc_button_array is used a lot hw-debouncing is already > >>>> unused. pinctrl-baytrail.c does not accept 50 ms as a valid > >>>> value and pinctrl-cherryview.c does not support hw debounce > >>>> at all. > >>> > >>> That sounds a like a generally good direction to me. > > > > Thinking a bit more of this, perhaps the HW debounce support flag should be > > per-GPIO-descriptor thingy. In such cases we don't need to distinguish the > > platforms, the GPIO ACPI lib may simply set that flag based on 0 read from > > the ACPI tables. It will also give a clue to any driver that uses GPIOs > > (not only gpio-keys). > > But 0 doesn't mean hardware debounce support is there, 0 means that > hardware debounce is not required to be programmed for this GPIO. > > That is - if another system had a non-zero value in the GpioInt entry I > would expect this to be translated into the GPIO register. Correct. The question is only about 0. So the flow will look like 1) if the GPIO is defined with 0 debounce, set the flag; 2) if the GPIO is defined with non-zero value, try to apply it; 3) if the step 2) fails, warn and set the flag. Would it make sense? Hans? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
