Hi Rafael,
On 4/13/21 11:35 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:53 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 4/12/21 8:11 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:01 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 7:38 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry about the timing of reporting this regression.
>>>>
>>>> Oh well.
>>>>
>>>>> I just noticed that overriding the DSDT (*) from the initrd will not work in 5.12,
>>>>> this is caused by:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit 1a1c130ab757 ("ACPI: tables: x86: Reserve memory occupied by ACPI tables")
>>>>>
>>>>> This makes the initial acpi_locate_initial_tables() call happen earlier
>>>>> then before, but the acpi_table_upgrade) call in arch/x86/kernel/setup.c is
>>>>> not moved up, so the tables in the initrd are now only parsed and saved
>>>>> after the initial ACPI table scanning has already been done.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess fixing this might be as easy as moving the acpi_table_upgrade) call
>>>>> higher in arch/x86/kernel/setup.c but I'm not sure if that is save to do.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it may not be safe?
>>>
>>> OK, so it won't work in some cases, because acpi_table_upgrade() needs
>>> to be called after reserve_initrd(),
>>
>> Right I notice it was sitting right after reserve_initrd() which made me think
>> that it probably needed to be after that. Sorry I should have mentioned that
>> in my original email.
>>
>>> so I guess the commit above will
>>> need to be reverted.
>>
>> One possible solution which I was wondering about is to modify
>> acpi_table_initrd_scan() to have it call acpi_tb_override_table()
>> instead of acpi_install_table() for existing tables using the matching
>> logic from acpi_table_initrd_override(). But I'm not sure when the
>> parsing of the DSDT is done. If acpi_table_initrd_scan() runs before
>> the first parsing of the DSDT is done then I think that that should work.
>>
>> This might be more 5.13 material though and for 5.12 a revert is
>> probably best.
>
> The attached change should make it work again, though. Can you please verify?
I can confirm that the attached change fixes things, thank you.
>> I also just remembered that at least the Intel audio folks rely on
>> DSDT overrides to get some (prototype) boards in their CI to work.
>
> But they haven't complained so far.
Weird, I'll drop them an email with you in the Cc.
Regards,
Hans
