Re: [PATCH 0/4] pinctrl: amd: Adjust handling for firmware misconfigurations

["Limonciello, Mario" <mlimonci@amd.com>]

On 5/5/2023 6:43 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 2:06 PM Mario Limonciello
> <mario.limonciello@amd.com> wrote:
>
>> commit 4e5a04be88fe ("pinctrl: amd: disable and mask interrupts on probe")
>> had intended to work around firmware problems on a Microsoft Surface
>> device but actually masked other real bugs in firmware and the driver.
>>
>> Before this commit, "wake on lid" doesn't work properly on a number of
>> systems, but this is because debounce handling was improperly configured
>> in the driver and due to a bug in this commit it gets configured a
>> different way.
>>
>> commit b26cd9325be4 ("pinctrl: amd: Disable and mask interrupts on
>> resume") attempted to build on top of this to mask issues on resume, but
>> it happened to "fix" the bug in commit 4e5a04be88fe ("pinctrl: amd:
>> disable and mask interrupts on probe") which "broke" wake on lid since
>> the debounce handling was programmed differently.
>>
>> This was reverted in commit 534e465845eb ("Revert "pinctrl: amd: Disable
>> and mask interrupts on resume"") which fixed the wake on lid.
>>
>> To fix this series of unfortunate events and prevent them in the future
>> this series corrects the GPIO0 debounce handling and reverts commit
>> 4e5a04be88fe ("pinctrl: amd: disable and mask interrupts on probe"). A new
>> patch that is safer is included that will fix spurious interrupt handling
>> and is expected to fix the issues that both
>> commit 4e5a04be88fe ("pinctrl: amd: disable and mask interrupts on probe")
>> and
>> commit b26cd9325be4 ("pinctrl: amd: Disable and mask interrupts on
>> resume") attempted to fix in a more scalable way.
> I applied the series for the next kernel cycle (becoming v6.5).
>
> If it gets urgent to get this in we can move it into the fixes (for v6.4 and
> stable) but at least this way we get some rotation in linux-next and wide
> testing of the patches.
>
> I will push it once v6.4-rc1 is out.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

Thanks!  Especially given the regression we were dealing with before I 
think this is the right
approach.