On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:13:22AM -0300, Marco Aurelio da Costa wrote:
> Hi, Konrad.
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:46:01AM -0300, Marco Aurelio da Costa wrote:
> >> From: Marco Aurelio da Costa <costa@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marco Aurelio da Costa <costa@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> The EliteBook 8560W has non-initialized entries in its _PSS ACPI
> >> table. Instead of bailing out when the first non-initialized entry is
> >> found, ignore it and use only the valid entries. Only bail out if there
> >> is no valid entry at all.
> >
> > Is that safe? Meaning re-use the other CPU's _PSS states? Perhaps the
> > warning at the end should say: "Trying to compensate by using the
> > other CPU's PSS state).
>
> This case in question was created by HP removing the overclock options
> and leaving the entries in a invalid/empty situation. In this specific
> case, it is safe.
> I am not changing the table in any way, I just ignore the
> non-initialized entries. The code only use listed states. If they are
> CPU bound, the code doesn't assume anything.
>
> >
> >>
> >> ---
> >> --- linux-3.3.3/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c.orig 2012-04-24
> >> 22:18:23.288041268 +0200
> >> +++ linux-3.3.3/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c 2012-04-24
> >> 22:19:25.912042603 +0200
> >> @@ -311,6 +311,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_performanc
> >> struct acpi_buffer state = { 0, NULL };
> >> union acpi_object *pss = NULL;
> >> int i;
> >> + int last_invalid = -1;
> >>
> >>
> >> status = acpi_evaluate_object(pr->handle, "_PSS", NULL, &buffer);
> >> @@ -374,12 +375,30 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_performanc
> >> printk(KERN_ERR FW_BUG PREFIX
> >> "Invalid BIOS _PSS frequency: 0x%llx MHz\n",
> >> px->core_frequency);
> >> - result = -EFAULT;
> >> - kfree(pr->performance->states);
> >> - goto end;
> >> + if (-1 == last_invalid)
> >
> > Swap it around or just do it this way:
>
> Ok.
>
> >
> > if (last_invalid < 0)
> >
> >> + last_invalid = i;
> >> + } else {
> >> + if (last_invalid != -1) {
> >
> > if (last_invalid >= 0)
> >
> >> + /*
> >> + * Copy this valid entry over last_invalid entry
> >> + */
> >> + memcpy(&(pr->performance->states[last_invalid]),
> >> + px, sizeof(struct acpi_processor_px));
> >> + ++last_invalid;
> >> + }
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> + if (0 == last_invalid) {
> >
> > So if _PSS that is missing is at CPU2, this own't print it.
>
> I don't get what do you mean by CPU. last_invalid is just the last
> invalid _PSS entry item. Nothing to do with the CPU.
The loop is based on CPU, oh wait. Not this loop. You are right - ignore
that comment please.
>
> >
> > I think you want 'if (last_invalid >= 0)'
>
> No, it is correct. If the last invalid found item is the item 0, than
> it means that no valid item was found.
I somehow thought that the 'i' was for the for_each_possible(cpu), but
that is another funtion.
>
> >
> >> + printk(KERN_ERR FW_BUG PREFIX
> >> + "No valid BIOS _PSS frequency found\n");
> >
> > And you should mention which CPU has it busted - as there are
> > some that are working.
>
> No CPU here, just the _PSS item.
Add pr->id - that will tell us which of the _PSS entries is defective.
>
> >
> >
> >> + result = -EFAULT;
> >> + kfree(pr->performance->states);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (last_invalid > 0)
> >
> > Don't you want 'last_invalid >= 0' ?
>
> No. It is correct. If the last invalid item is greater than 0, then
> there was at least 1 valid _PSS entry. And the count of valid entries
> is the same as the last_invalid variable.
>
> >
> >> + pr->performance->state_count = last_invalid;
> >> +
> >> end:
> >> kfree(buffer.pointer);
> >> --
> >> 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
>
> I will send the corrected patch next.
>
>
> --
> Marco Costa
> Customer Support
> --
> GAMIC mbH
> Roermonder Strasse, 151
> 52072 Aachen
> Germany
--
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
