[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: intel-gpio interrupts stop firing with Focaltech I2C-HID touchpad
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:38:33AM +0000, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Hi,
> We have 2 new laptop samples which use ACPI GpioInt for the I2C-HID
> touchpad interrupt (via intel-gpio) and both models face different
> issues related to this interrupt, which is level-triggered active low
> (as defined by i2c-hid spec), and ultimately handled by a threaded
> interrupt handler in the i2c-hid driver.
> The first model that we are looking at is Asus X540NA SKU3 using a
> Focaltech touchpad, Intel Apollo Lake using pinctrl-broxton. The
> touchpad stops responding after a short period of usage. An easy
> reproducer is to touch with 2 fingers. At this point, no more
> intel-gpio interrupts appear and the touchpad can no longer be used.
> Is there any documentation available for the registers that intel-gpio
> works with? We have tried several experiments but have been unable to
> really understand the behaviour of the hardware here.

There is public data sheets for Skylake at least. It should be pretty
similar to APL.

Now, have you actually measured the signal using oscilloscope or

I've seen some early prototypes where the signal actually does not work
as expected.

> We are using this base patch for debugging:
> It logs the register values before and after each operation, and also
> has a timer showing the same reg values every 1 second.

You can also just dump the pad registers from debugfs

> With this patch applied, here are the boot logs showing initial
> (succesful) probing of the touchpad:
> And here is a later log snippet showing the touchpad being used,
> before interrupts stop arriving @ 130.883810 on line 3341
> On line 3342 onwards, the debug timer is logging the state of the
> hardware, showing that the GPIO is low (PADCFG0=40900100), the
> interrupt is enabled (IE=40000), the interrupt is pending (IS=40000)
> but yet no interrupt arrives.
> When interrupts do work, the basic sequence of events is:
> - intel-gpio hardware interrupt fires
> - call generic_handle_irq()
> - mask (unset bit in IE register)
> - ack (unset bit in IS register)
> - Enter i2c_hid threaded IRQ handler some time later
> - i2c_hid threaded IRQ handler returns
> - unmask (set bit in IE register)
> I experimented with this sequence of events, and I found that if I
> don't mask/unmask, but instead move the ack until several seconds
> later, then no more interrupts will arrive til the ack.
> So if is it the ack that seems to make the hardware start re-sampling
> the GPIO level in order to generate more interupts, should that be
> done only after the IRQ handler has finished?
> 3 experiments with that idea, each link both with the incremental
> patch and the resultant logs:
> 1. Move the ack to happen right after unmask in the above sequence
> 2. Move the ack to happen right before unmask
> 3. Ack at that same point in the sequence but don't mask/unmask at all
> Unfortunately in 3 all cases the problem is the same, the interrupts
> soon stop firing even though IE/IS/PADCFG0 all suggest that another
> interrupt is pending.
> Maybe it is not the ack behaviour that is wrong here. Ultimately we
> found a nasty workaround where we detect the above conditions and then
> mask and unmask the interrupt and that is enough to kick things off
> again.
> Any ideas? We would like to find a correct and upstreamable solution.

Please first check the signal with some analyzator if it works as
expected and let's then figure out what needs to be fixed and where ;-)
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-17 17:17    [W:0.068 / U:2.488 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site