Re: [PATCH] HID: intel-ish-hid: ipc: Rework EHL OOB wakeup

From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: srinivas pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>
Cc: "Xu, Even" <even.xu@intel.com>,
	"jikos@kernel.org" <jikos@kernel.org>,
	"benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com" <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Lee, Jian Hui" <jianhui.lee@canonical.com>,
	"Zhang, Lixu" <lixu.zhang@intel.com>,
	"Ba, Najumon" <najumon.ba@intel.com>,
	"linux-input@vger.kernel.org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: intel-ish-hid: ipc: Rework EHL OOB wakeup
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 19:59:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iFLxpWHW=sDZ7=Wne3Yt=8_EwhW9SeCmRP6REpVqo8rA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <67c85f083201ed2cda2cab198b40141ad21912a2.camel@linux.intel.com>

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 6:54 PM srinivas pandruvada
<srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 15:36 +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 11:57 PM srinivas pandruvada
> > <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Kai-Heng,
> > > On Mon, 2023-09-18 at 09:17 +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
> > > > Hi Even,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 8:33 AM Xu, Even <even.xu@intel.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Kai-Heng,
> > > > >
> > > > > I just got feedback, for testing EHL S5 wakeup feature, you
> > > > > need
> > > > > several steps to setup and access
> > > > > "https://portal.devicewise.com/things/browse" to trigger wake.
> > > > > But currently, our test account of this website are all out of
> > > > > data.
> > > > > So maybe you need double check with the team who required you
> > > > > preparing the patch for the verification.
> > > >
> > > > The patch is to solve the GPE refcount overflow, while
> > > > maintaining S5
> > > > wakeup. I don't have any mean to test S5 wake.
> > > >
> > > The issue is not calling acpi_disable_gpe(). To reduce the scope of
> > > change can we just add that instead of a adding new callbacks. This
> > > way
> > > scope is reduced.
> >
> > This patch does exactly the same thing by letting PCI and ACPI handle
> > the PME and GPE.
> > Though the change seems to be bigger, it actually reduces the duped
> > code, while keep the S5 wakeup ability intact.
> It may be doing the same. But with long chain of calls without
> verification, I am not comfortable.
> This can be another patch by itself to use the framework.

I agree.

Let's change one thing at a time.

> But you are targeting a fix for overflow issue, which is separate from
> the use of PCI/ACPI framework.

Yes, let's fix the bug first and make things look nicer separately.