Re: Bug#1029850: linux: Driver not loaded for ST Microelectronics LSM6DS3TR-C accelerometer (acpi:SMO8B30:SMO8B30:)

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 2/5/23 17:06, Darrell Kavanagh wrote:
> So does this mean that the least worst (only?) option is to get my
> hwdb mount matrix entry added to systemd? I can raise a bug as
> suggested in hwdb.d/60-sensor.hwdb if so.

Yes you should add a hwdb entry for this, note just submitting
a pull-req with the fix is better then filing an issue for this.

Regards,

Hans



> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 at 14:22, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 09:50:51 +0100
>> Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2/4/23 23:15, Darrell Kavanagh wrote:
>>>> Yes, I understand that.
>>>>
>>>> What I mean is that the matrix read from the DSDT by Jonathan's
>>>> amended driver is
>>>>
>>>>  0 -1  0
>>>>  1  0  0
>>>>  0  0  1
>>>>
>>>> and the (correct) matrix created with my new hwdb entry is
>>>>
>>>>  0  1  0
>>>> -1  0  0
>>>>  0  0  1
>>
>> May be concidence, but I think that's the inverse of the one we are reading
>> from ROTM - so represents the transform in the other direction.
>>
>> The way ROTM is defined is that first row represents the direction of
>> the x axis in device coordinates - so it's the transform from sensor
>> to device space.
>>
>> I wonder if the hwdb matrix is defined from world space to sensor?  Seems
>> unlikely.
>>
>> The IIO ABI docs describe mount matrix as being what you apply to data to
>> tranform into device space (oh for a diagram in the docs).  Anyhow my reading
>> is that matches with ROTM definition but maybe I'm reading that wrong...
>>
>> For extra annoyance, the ROTM matrix on this device isn't a rotation matrix.
>> It's flipping the handedness of the sensor.  Determinant isn't -1 which it
>> should be.  I guess the sensor itself might have an axis backwards from
>> windows convention though *sigh*  I think windows uses left handed convention
>> and looks like sensor is using right handed (which I think is what Android and
>> similar use).
>>
>>>>
>>>> which is the algebraic transposition (ie reflection in the diagonal)
>>>> of the DSDT one.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, though the DST matrix is wrong, it is wrong in a
>>>> specific way - the rows should be the columns, and vv. I was just
>>>> wondering if this was a DSDT bug that might have been seen elsewhere
>>>> before.
>>>
>>> No this does not ring a bell, but the x and y axis being swapped
>>> does seem related to the LCD panel being 90° rotated.
>>>
>>>> BTW, there is another matrix in the DSTD, but I can't find the
>>>> associated HID (10EC5280) anywhere (Linux sysfs or Windows Powershell
>>>> system data extract). It's not a correct matrix, though - could it be
>>>> just a bit of redundant code in the DST?
>>>
>>> Yes that is likely there often is a bunch of dead stuff DSDT leftover
>>> from other device models.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Darrell
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 21:31, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/4/23 18:09, Darrell Kavanagh wrote:
>>>>>> I've just noticed that the working mount matrix that I added to my
>>>>>> hwdb is the matrix retrieved from the ACPI ROTM call in the amended
>>>>>> driver, transposed.
>>>>>
>>>>> An other word for the mount matrix would be a rotation matrix,
>>>>> since it defines how the physical sensor is mounted on the PCB
>>>>> in a rotated fashion compared to its standard orientation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The x, y, z axis relationship underling of course does
>>>>> not change by the rotation, so yes all mount matrices
>>>>> are a transposition of the standard:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1, 0, 0 : 0, 1, 0 : 0, 0, 1
>>>>>
>>>>> matrix, that is expected. Where that to not be the case
>>>>> then there would be a bug in the accelerometer driver itself
>>>>> where the driver itself is swapping or inverting axis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 18:23, Darrell Kavanagh
>>>>>> <darrell.kavanagh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally got a 6.2.0-rc6 kernel built and installed, with the following
>>>>>>> patch, and everything is working as expected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moving on now to look at Bastien's suggestion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Darrell
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/drm_panel_orientation_quirks.c
>>>>>>> b/kernel/linux-6.2-rc6/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_panel_orientation_quirks.c
>>>>>>> index 3659f04..590bb7b 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/drm_panel_orientation_quirks.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/linux-6.2-rc6/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_panel_orientation_quirks.c
>>>>>>> @@ -304,6 +304,12 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id orientation_data[] = {
>>>>>>>                   DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION, "Lenovo ideapad
>>>>>>> D330-10IGM"),
>>>>>>>                 },
>>>>>>>                 .driver_data = (void *)&lcd1200x1920_rightside_up,
>>>>>>> +       }, {    /* Lenovo IdeaPad Duet 3 10IGL5 */
>>>>>>> +               .matches = {
>>>>>>> +                 DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "LENOVO"),
>>>>>>> +                 DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION, "IdeaPad Duet 3 10IGL5"),
>>>>>>> +               },
>>>>>>> +               .driver_data = (void *)&lcd1200x1920_rightside_up,
>>>>>>>         }, {    /* Lenovo Ideapad D330-10IGL (HD) */
>>>>>>>                 .matches = {
>>>>>>>                   DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "LENOVO"),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 17:55, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/23 18:50, Darrell Kavanagh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you. I don't have anything that could be called a big machine.
>>>>>>>>> The fastest processor I have access to is a Core m3-8100Y - that's in
>>>>>>>>> a Chromebook with 4GB memory - it can run Linux in a chroot or
>>>>>>>>> officially in Google's VM. I also have an ancient gen 2 core i5-2410M
>>>>>>>>> machine which is slower than the m3 in theory, but that has 6GB of
>>>>>>>>> memory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is the kernel build more processor or memory bound?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is mostly processor bound, esp. wtih something like make -j4,
>>>>>>>> make -j16 will start taking some RAM, but with make -j4 I expect you
>>>>>>>> to be fully CPU bound.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 16:12, Bastien Nocera <hadess@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2023-02-01 at 12:00 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/23 11:28, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 01:40:49 +0000
>>>>>>>>>>>> Darrell Kavanagh <darrell.kavanagh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've finally reached a conclusion on this, after testing all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the patches (with and without reading the acpi
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mounting matrix), window managers (wayland, xorg) and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> presence or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not of my custom kernel parms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What works well is the full set of patches with the custom kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parms and a new hwdb entry for the sensor:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensor:modalias:acpi:SMO8B30*:dmi:*:svnLENOVO*:pn82AT:*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ACCEL_MOUNT_MATRIX=0, 1, 0; -1, 0, 0; 0, 0, 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The autorotate then works correctly in wayland and xorg, but for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> xorg,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the settings say the screen is "portrait left" when in actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is in standard laptop landscape orientation. Wayland does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this problem (I guess because wayland's view of the screen is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the kernel).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without the hwdb entry, the orientation is 90 degrees out without
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the acpi matrix and 180 degrees out when using it. I could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gone either way here with appropriate hwdb entries, but my view
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we *should* be using the matrix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Added Hans de Goede as he has probably run into more of this mess
>>>>>>>>>>>> than anyone else.  Hans, any thoughts on if we are doing something
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong on kernel side?  Or is the matrix just wrong *sigh*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see below that this laptop has a panel which is mounted 90 degrees
>>>>>>>>>>> rotated, that likely explains why the ACPI matrix does not work.
>>>>>>>>>>> So the best thing to do here is to just override it with a hwdb
>>>>>>>>>>> entries.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IIRC there are already 1 or 2 other hwdb entries which actually
>>>>>>>>>>> override the ACPI provided matrix because of similar issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Linux userspace expects the matrix in this case to be set so that
>>>>>>>>>>> it causes e.g. gnome's auto-rotation to put the image upright
>>>>>>>>>>> even with older gnome versions / mate / xfce which don't know about
>>>>>>>>>>> the panel being mounted 90 degrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So e.g. "monitor-sensor" will report left-side-up or right-side-up
>>>>>>>>>>> while the device is actually in normal clamshell mode with the
>>>>>>>>>>> display up-right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This reporting of left-side-up or right-side-up is actually "correct"
>>>>>>>>>>> looking from the native LCD panel orientation and as mentioned is
>>>>>>>>>>> done for backward compatibility. This is documented here:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/main/hwdb.d/60-sensor.hwdb#L54
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The way we are handling this is likely incompatible with how Windows
>>>>>>>>>>> handles this special case of 90° rotated screen + ROTM. Or the
>>>>>>>>>>> matrix in the ACPI tables could be just wrong...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think 'ROTM' is defined by MS.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/sensors/sensors-acpi-entries
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right and as such it would be good if we can still add support to
>>>>>>>>>>> it to the sensor driver in question. Because the ROTM info usually
>>>>>>>>>>> is correct and avoids the need for adding more and more hwdb entries.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note there already is existing support in some other sensor drivers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So we probably need to factor out some helper code for this and share
>>>>>>>>>>> that between sensor drivers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that concerns me is the need for custom kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be better if there was a way to avoid this, so that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't have to mess around with their grub config. Though having
>>>>>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, the sensors fix as we have it doesn't make things worse -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently released kernels the screen always starts up sideways
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom parms are added in grub.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We actually have a quirk mechanism in the kernel for specifying
>>>>>>>>>>> the need for: video=DSI-1:panel_orientation=right_side_up  and this
>>>>>>>>>>> will also automatically fix the fbcon orientation, see:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_panel_orientation_quirks.c
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you submit a patch for this upstream please Cc me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And if after that change, and copy/pasting the orientation from the
>>>>>>>>>> DSDT into hwdb the sensor and screen move in the expected ways, then
>>>>>>>>>> maybe stealing the BMC150 driver's
>>>>>>>>>> bmc150_apply_bosc0200_acpi_orientation() might be a good idea.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once exported through "mount_matrix", iio-sensor-proxy should see it
>>>>>>>>>> and read it without the need for a hwdb entry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>