Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: amd-pmc: Add alternative acpi id for PMC controller

[Shyam Sundar S K]

On 10/8/2021 1:30 AM, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> +Sanket Goswami
> 
> On 10/5/2021 00:16, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/2021 9:48 AM, Sachi King wrote:
>>> The Surface Laptop 4 AMD has used the AMD0005 to identify this
>>> controller instead of using the appropriate ACPI ID AMDI0005.  Include
>>> AMD0005 in the acpi id list.
>>
>> Can you provide an ACPI dump and output of 'cat /sys/power/mem_sleep'
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shyam
>>
> 
> I had a look through the acpidump listed there and it seems like the PEP
> device is filled with a lot of NO-OP type of code.  This means the LPS0
> patch really isn't "needed", but still may be a good idea to include for
> completeness in case there ends up being a design based upon this that
> does need it.
> 
> As for this one (the amd-pmc patch) how are things working with it? Have
> you checked power consumption and verified that the amd_pmc debugfs
> statistics are increasing?  Is the system able to resume from s2idle?

Echo-ing to what Mario said, I am also equally interested in knowing the
the surface devices are able to reach S2Idle.

Spefically can you check if your tree has this commit?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pdx86/platform-drivers-x86.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=9cfe02023cf67a36c2dfb05d1ea3eb79811a8720

this would tell the last s0i3 status, whether it was successful or not.

cat /sys/kernel/debug/amd_pmc/smu_fw_info

> 
> Does pinctrl-amd load on this system?  It seems to me that the power
> button GPIO doesn't get used like normally on "regular" UEFI based AMD
> systems.  I do see MSHW0040 so this is probably supported by
> surfacepro3-button and that will probably service all the important events.