Hi Hui,
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:44:15 +0800, Xiao, Hui wrote:
> On 2012/6/13 16:46, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > If the access code is supposed to be able to read large registers in
> > smaller chunks and assemble them transparently to a larger value, then
> > there is no point in having any check at all, everything is valid. If
> > not, then the above is just as invalid as the firmware issue discussed
> > in bug #43282.
>
> Able to read large registers in smaller chunk, I think so and the register
> bit width set the access boundary.
My understanding is that Access Size, not Register Bit Width, sets the
access boundary. Thus the name.
> For "assemble them transparently to a larger value, then...", not quite
> understand what you mean here....
I mean that:
- Register bit width: 32 bits
- Register bit offset: 0
- Access Size: 01 [Byte Access: 08]
can be considered invalid (Gary's point of view) but it could also be
interpreted as: hardware can only be accessed 8-bit at a time, but we
have a logical 32-bit register, so the software ACPI layer should issue
4 8-bit reads, and assemble the read values into a 32-bit value. This
obviously raises the issue of endianess, but I guess ACPI implies
little-endian anyway?
Anyway, this was really meant as a question, as I am no ACPI expert. I
don't think our ACPI code currently implements such read gathering, but
I don't know if this is by lack of time or need, or because it is
simply not supposed to be needed ever.
> > (...)
> > I can't make any sense of this test, sorry. And it will trigger on
> > valid cases, starting with the most frequent case where
> > *access_bit_width == bit_width. So, nack.
> >
> The condition here is for checking invalid GAR. When
> *access_bit_width == bit_width
> I don't think my code will trigger the error.
Doh, I don't know what I was up to yesterday, but obviously I was wrong
here, sorry.
> Instead, the original condition
> will trigger the error once bit_offset != 0, which doesn't make sense.
No, it won't, depending on the value of bit_width.
> Besides if addressing a data structure, per ACPI spec bit_width and bit_offset
> must be zero, the original condition will always end with error even valid
> access width is given.
I agree that the original test did not support the data structure case.
OTOH after quickly reading the relevant page of the ACPI specification,
I do not understand how the structure size is passed, so I have no idea
how this case could be handled.
--
Jean Delvare
--
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
