On Thursday 03 November 2011 17:44:06 Myron Stowe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 03, 2011 02:53:09 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Monday, October 31, 2011 04:51:07 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Seems like these are BIOS bugs. Do we know for sure that Windows
> >> >> consumes this information that seems to be wrong? Have you had a
> >> >> conversation with the vendor about whether the BIOS is at fault here?
> >> > Such closed specifications between a major OS and specific HW vendors
> >> > should be forbidden by law and I expect in some countries you'll win
> >> > if you contest this contract in a high enough court...
> >> > APEI is based on the Windows WHEA specification which only specific
> >> > vendors can retrieve from Windows if they sign an NDA contract.
> >> > I could imagine there you find details about the GAS structure usage
> >> > in WHEA/APEI tables the way Windows like it.
> >> >
> >> > After looking at quite a lot APEI tables and their bit width, byte access
> >> > and mask values, I am pretty sure bit width is ignored on Windows.
> >> > Or say, if these tables are used, access width is always correct while
> >> > bit width is not.
> >> >
> >> >> If we make Linux ignore the bit_width, that might "fix" these boxes
> >> >> with broken BIOSes, but at the cost of breaking a box that uses
> >> >> bit_width correctly.
> >> > None of the "broken bit width" boxes I looked at should break if
> >> > access width is used.
> >>
> >> Yes, but bit_width is a standard part of the ACPI generic address
> >> structure, and there's nothing to prevent a future BIOS from using it
> >> and expecting it to work as documented.
> > Yep, but access width is also part of the standard ACPI generic address
> > structure and currently gets totally ignored and bit width is used instead.
> >
> > I just realized: what code is using acpi_read?
> > I can't find any user...
> >
> > So we can either:
> > - modify acpi_read/write and implement things as needed -> nobody
> > uses it
> > - as acpi_read is acpica code we can for now leave this in apei parts
> > (still consolidate duplicate code from atomicio.c, remove pre_map
> > stuff and the whole atomicio.c file) and still keep apei_acpi_read
> > for now in apei-base.c. There we can implement what we like to see
> > in acpi_read:
> > - if access width is zero -> use bit width to determine how many
> > bytes have to be read
> > - otherwise use access width
> >
> > Also an APEI version for apei_check_gar in apei-base.c isn't that bad
> > for now.
> >
> > As there are no users of acpi_read and acpi_write yet, it might be a good
> > idea for now if this function simply reads the amount of bytes as
> > described above and leave it up to the caller to cut off any bytes
> > using bit width, bit offset or (for APEI GAR structs only) using the mask.
> > (As done by current APEI code, unfortunately twice).
> >
>
> For now, I would like to continue with converting APEI to remove atomicio.[ch]
> preserving the existing atomicio behavior - basically the same patch I posted
> a few weeks ago with the additions mentioned last night.
You mean this:
struct acpi_generic_address gas; /* on local stack */
gas = entry->register_region;
gas.bit_offset = 0;
acpi_read(val, &gas);
> This would leave the more generic code (osl.c) unbiased for now. We can
> then account for all the APEI uniqueness - bit_width/access_width/mask -
> in APEI code, not in the more generic code.
Better don't use acpi_read (and thus also acpi_hw_validate_register()) in a
first step. This is acpica code and modifying it in -rcX releases is not
a good idea. acpi_read/write also might be used on other OSes (even likely,
this would explain why it's unused on Linux) and getting changes in there
could get really difficult.
Also above "gas.bit_offset = 0" is not nice and not needed for now:
Better copy over acpi_atomic_write, acpi_atomic_read and acpi_check_gar()
to apei-base.c (declaring them in apei-internal.h should be enough).
apei_write, apei_read and apei_check_gar should be better names.
I fully agree with:
> I would like to continue with converting APEI to remove atomicio.[ch]
> preserving the existing atomicio behavior
You might want to add "considering access width" as I suggested or similar.
Or I can go on top later.
> As far as I can tell, the two paths each of us want to take do not seem to
> interfere with each other.
We are on the same road.
> Do you see, or have, any issues with that approach?
It's only the "use generic acpi_read/write()" issue.
Let's better try to get rid of apei_read/write/check_gar specific functions
in a second step (the functions I suggested above to get copied from atomicio.c
(from acpi_atomic_read/write and acpi_check_gar()) to apei-base.c and
enhanced with access width considerations) and incorporate this
into acpica after acpica people had more time and a closer look at this.
Thomas
> Thanks,
> Myron
> >> If we make Linux
> >> ignore/override the bit_width now, we'll build a legacy of machines
> >> that depend on the fact that we ignore it, and then we would have no
> >> way to deal with future machines that might expect us to pay attention
> >> to it.
> > bit width is not ignored it should get used if access width is zero or
> > also to cut off bits.
> > It can get ignored for APEI tables as the mask value already defines
> > which bits should get used and therefore seem to be ignored on other
> > OSes.
> >
> > Thomas
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
