[Public]
-----Original Message----- From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael@kernel.org Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 08:46 To: Limonciello, Mario Mario.Limonciello@amd.com Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael@kernel.org; Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com; Linux PM linux-pm@vger.kernel.org; Stable stable@vger.kernel.org; Justin Forbes jmforbes@linuxtx.org; Mark Pearson markpearson@lenovo.com; ACPI Devel Maling List <linux- acpi@vger.kernel.org>; Kai-Heng Feng kai.heng.feng@canonical.com Subject: Re: Many reports of laptops getting hot while suspended with kernels >= 5.16.10 || >= 5.17-rc1
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 2:38 PM Limonciello, Mario Mario.Limonciello@amd.com wrote:
[Public]
Just FWIW this fix that was backported to stable also fixed keyboard wakeup from s2idle on a number of HP laptops too. I know for sure
that
it fixed it on the AMD versions of them, and Kai Heng Feng suspected it will also fix it for the Intel versions. So if there is another commit that can be backported from 5.17 to make it safer for the other
systems,
I think we should consider doing that to solve it too.
There is a series of ACPI EC driver commits that are present in 5.17-rc, but have not been included in any "stable" series:
befd9b5b0c62 ACPI: EC: Relocate acpi_ec_create_query() and drop acpi_ec_delete_query() c33676aa4824 ACPI: EC: Make the event work state machine visible c793570d8725 ACPI: EC: Avoid queuing unnecessary work in acpi_ec_submit_event() eafe7509ab8c ACPI: EC: Rename three functions a105acd7e384 ACPI: EC: Simplify locking in acpi_ec_event_handler() 388fb77dcf97 ACPI: EC: Rearrange the loop in acpi_ec_event_handler() 98d364509d77 ACPI: EC: Fold acpi_ec_check_event() into acpi_ec_event_handler() 1f2350443dd2 ACPI: EC: Pass one argument to acpi_ec_query() ca8283dcd933 ACPI: EC: Call advance_transaction() from acpi_ec_dispatch_gpe()
It is likely that they prevent the problem exposed by the problematic commit from occurring, but I'm not sure which ones do that. Some of them are clearly cosmetic, but the ordering matters.
Hans,
Do you think you could get one of the folks who reported this regression to
do
a bisect to see which one "fixed" it? If we get lucky we can come down to some smaller hunks of code that can come back to stable instead of
reverting.
It's been reverted already.
What we can do is to request adding it back along with other commits needed for it to work as expected.
OK thanks, makes sense.
Also, I think we'll need all of the commits listed up to and including c793570d8725 ("ACPI: EC: Avoid queuing unnecessary work in acpi_ec_submit_event()") at least, but that's just a guess.
Yeah so we'll for sure need a bisect to confirm and come up with that list.