RE: Many reports of laptops getting hot while suspended with kernels >= 5.16.10 || >= 5.17-rc1

From: "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: 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
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:14:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BL1PR12MB5157D1E7EBB32F66C284DE0FE2119@BL1PR12MB5157.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b559b406-006e-05e6-6378-4665ff721666@redhat.com>

[Public]

> > 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?
> 
> We already know which commit is causing the regression. As Rafael already
> said the question is why things are not broken in 5.17 and that is not
> a straight forward bisect. So figuring this out is going to be a lot
> of work and I'm not sure of that it is worth it. I certainly don't
> have time to help users with debugging this.
> 
> > If we get lucky we can come down to
> > some smaller hunks of code that can come back to stable instead of
> reverting.
> 
> 5.17 is almost done and in a couple of weeks Fedora (and Arch and other
> distros tracking the mainline kernel) will move to 5.17 resolving the
> wakeup by keyboard issue not working there.
> 
> 5.16 is not a LTS kernel, so for other distros we would at a minimum
> figure out what needs to be backported to make things work with 5.15
> making the delta / set of possible patches we need even bigger.
> So as already said IMHO this is not worth it, at least assuming that
> nothing bad happens when attempting wakeup by keyboard, iow it
> just does not work and does not put the laptop in some bad state?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hans

You're right, no bad state as a result and probably not worth the tradeoff for a bisect effort.
OK, thanks.