On Monday, October 31, 2011, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Friday 28 October 2011 17:03:03 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thursday 29 September 2011 23:59:08 Myron Stowe wrote:
> > > ..
> > >> Myron Stowe (2):
> > >> ACPI: Convert acpi_pre_map_gar()/acpi_atomic_read() and remove ./drivers/acpi/atomicio.[ch]
> > >> ACPI: Export interfaces for ioremapping/iounmapping ACPI registers
> > >
> > > Would be great to know whether these are going to be accepted.
> > > If yes, this check should get removed as well:
> > >
> > > drivers/acpi/acpica/hwregs.c:
> > > acpi_status
> > > acpi_hw_validate_register(struct acpi_generic_address *reg,
> > > u8 max_bit_width, u64 *address)
> > > {
> > > ...
> > > if (reg->bit_offset != 0) {
> > > ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
> > > "Unsupported register bit offset: 0x%X",
> > > reg->bit_offset));
> > > }
> > >
> > > because APEI GAR declarations do use bit_offset != 0.
> >
> > Half of this makes sense to me. Myron's patch changes APEI from using
> > acpi_atomic_read() (which doesn't call acpi_hw_validate_register()) to
> > using acpi_read(), which *does* call it. So after Myron's patch,
> > we'll see warnings we didn't see before.
> >
> > The part that doesn't make sense to me is just removing the warning.
> > That warning looks to me like it's saying "oops, here's something we
> > should support, but haven't implemented yet." Wouldn't it be better
> > to implement support for bit_offset in acpi_read() at the same time we
> > remove the warning? Then Myron could update his patch to drop the
> > bit_offset support in __apei_exec_read_register() when converting to
> > acpi_read().
> >
> > If APEI uses bit_offset != 0, it's at least possible that other areas
> > will use it in the future, and it'd be nicer to have all the support
> > in acpi_read() rather than forcing APEI and others to each implement
> > their own support for it.
> Googling for the warning:
> "Unsupported register bit offset"
> only points to code snippets.
> The code needs to be compatible with a long history of ACPI table
> implementations (the reason why I thought to keep bit offset handling
> in APEI code for now is the safer approach). But bit_offset != 0 seem
> to only appear in latest APEI table implementations.
Why does that matter at all? If bit_offset != 0 is used in _any_ tables,
then we should support that.
> Looks like this condition was never run into and it should be safe
> to add bit offset support to these generic parts.
> -> I agree that bit offset handling can/should get added there.
>
> Still, if Windows has duplicated code for APEI GAR handling (with
> additional mask value, for example ignoring bit width) and does it
> slightly different than they do it in other parts,
> we also might not come around APEI specific GAR checking/workarounds.
Do we actually know how Windows works in that respect?
Rafael
--
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
