RE: [PATCH v5] ACPI: skip IRQ1 override on 3 Ryzen 6000 laptops

[Limonciello, Mario]

[Public]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 13:24
> To: Chuanhong Guo <gch981213@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>; Limonciello, Mario
> <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>; ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-
> acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tighe Donnelly
> <tighe.donnelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Kent Hou Man <knthmn0@xxxxxxxxx>;
> Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>; open list <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] ACPI: skip IRQ1 override on 3 Ryzen 6000 laptops
> 
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:45 PM Chuanhong Guo <gch981213@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:12 AM Limonciello, Mario
> > <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > However I do want to point out that Windows doesn't care about legacy
> > > format or not.  This bug where keyboard doesn't work only popped up on
> > > Linux.
> > >
> > > Given the number of systems with the bug is appearing to grow I wonder
> > > if the right answer is actually a new heuristic that doesn't apply the
> > > kernel override for polarity inversion anymore.  Maybe if the system is
> > > 2022 or newer?  Or on the ACPI version?
> >
> > The previous attempt to limit the scope of IRQ override ends up
> > breaking some other buggy devices:
> >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatc
> hwork.kernel.org%2Fproject%2Flinux-
> acpi%2Fpatch%2F20210728151958.15205-1-
> hui.wang%40canonical.com%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%4
> 0amd.com%7C106955e4611344d3bc3808da5eb3971d%7C3dd8961fe4884e608
> e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637926422673112765%7CUnknown%7CTWF
> pbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV
> CI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=xOaRbkCv9EMhpLO%2BGAP
> mDjEhQ78xjYFBvehLZdg1k1I%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
> > It's unfortunate that the original author of this IRQ override doesn't
> > limit the scope to their exact devices.
> >
> > Hi, Rafael! What do you think? should we skip this IRQ override
> > one-by-one or add a different matching logic to check the bios date
> > instead?
> 
> It would be better to find something precise enough to identify the
> machines in question without pulling in the others and use that for
> skipping the override instead of listing them all one by one in the
> blocklist.

How about using the CPU family/model in this case?