Re: [BUG]i2c_hid_acpi broken with 4.17.2 on Framework Laptop 13 AMD

[Sébastien Chaumat <euidzero@xxxxxxxxx>]

Le lun. 11 déc. 2023 à 12:27, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> On 11.12.2023 12:09, Sébastien Chaumat wrote:
> > Le lun. 11 déc. 2023 à 10:18, Sébastien Chaumat <euidzero@xxxxxxxxx> a 
> > écrit :
> >>
> >>> On 05.12.2023 21:31, Sébastien Chaumat wrote:
> >>>>> [    2.464598] amd_gpio AMDI0030:00: failed to enable wake-up interrupt
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it expected that IRQ7 goes from fasteoi (kernel 6.6.4 ) to
> >>>> ioapic-edge and IRQ9 to ioapic-level ?
> >>>>
> >>>> IR-IO-APIC    7-fasteoi   pinctrl_amd
> >>>> IR-IO-APIC    9-fasteoi   acpi
> >>>>
> >>>> to (xen 4.18.0)
> >>>>
> >>>> xen-pirq     -ioapic-edge  pinctrl_amd
> >>>> xen-pirq     -ioapic-level  acpi
> >>>>
> >>>> ?
> >
> > This look similar to
> > https://yhbt.net/lore/all/20201006044941.fdjsp346kc5thyzy@Rk/t/
> >
> > This issue seems that IRQ 7 (the GPIO controller) is natively fasteoi
> > (so level type) while in xen it  is mapped to oapic-edge  instead of
> > oapic-level
> > as the SSDT indicates :
> >
> >  Device (GPIO)
> >
> >      {
> >          Name (_HID, "AMDI0030")  // _HID: Hardware ID
> >          Name (_CID, "AMDI0030")  // _CID: Compatible ID
> >          Name (_UID, Zero)  // _UID: Unique ID
> >          Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized)  // _CRS: Current Resource Settings
> >          {
> >              Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate ()
> >              {
> >                  Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveLow, Shared, ,, )
> >                  {
> >                      0x00000007,
> >            }
> > Any idea why ?
>
> Information coming from AML is required to be handed down by Dom0 to Xen.
> May want checking that (a) Dom0 properly does so and (b) Xen doesn't screw
> up in consuming that data. See PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi. I wonder if this is
> specific to it being IRQ7 which GPIO uses, as at the (master) PIC IRQ7 is
> also the spurious vector. You may want to retry with the tip of the 4.17
> branch (soon to become 4.17.3) - while it doesn't look very likely to me
> that recent backports there were related, it may still be that they make
> a difference.

Tried 4.17.3-pre : no change
How would you check (a) and (b) exactly (I need technical directions here)?

Any way to force IRQ7 to ioapic-level to test the hypothesis ?

Thanks
Sébastien