On 01/13/2014 05:59 PM, Al Stone wrote:
On 01/13/2014 05:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, January 13, 2014 04:07:19 PM Al Stone wrote:
On 01/10/2014 04:32 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2014 03:52:19 PM al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx>
Several of the FADT fields are normally kept in specific memory
regions. Since these fields are to be ignored in hardware reduced
ACPI mode, do not map those addresses when in that mode, and of
course do not release the mappings that have not been made.
The function acpi_os_initialize() could become a stub in the header
file but is left here in case it can be of further use.
Why exactly is this change necessary?
Two reasons: (1) why do work we do not have to do? and (2) it
seemed to make sense to me to have the code reflect the spec
accurately.
Will things work incorrectly on HW-reduced ACPI systems if we don't
make it?
If the ACPI tables have all of these fields properly set to zero
in hardware reduced, this change does not need to be made. If a
vendor provides broken ACPI tables where these values are valid,
but still sets hardware reduced in the FADT, these fields could
then be used as before -- but allowing them to be used would mean
we can no longer claim we are implementing hardware reduced correctly.
So things would work, but the system would by definition be in some
sort of undefined hybrid ACPI mode.
So this is how it goes. I'm being told that there are systems in
existence
where the HW-reduced bit is set for Windows RT compatibility, but
otherwise
the ACPI HW is fully functional on them. Apparently, people are able to
install and run Linux on those systems today.
Question is, are they still going to be able to run Linux on them
after the
changes in this set?
Hrm. This would have been incredibly useful to know earlier. I
might have taken a completely different approach. Or perhaps not
even have bothered.
I'm not naive enough to think all vendors will fully or rigorously
comply with standards. Down that path madness lies. But at face
value, it sounds like they didn't even try.
Without access to the ACPI tables and the hardware itself, there is
no way to know if Linux will run; I have yet to see any such system.
The phrase "...the ACPI HW is fully functional..." could mean way too
many things -- it could mean anything from strict compliance with
hardware reduced mode to completely compliant with legacy mode but all
we did was toggle the hardware reduced flag so we could use GPIOs
instead of an SCI.
As far as I can tell, that makes the question undecidable. I can't
prove a negative -- I can't prove these patches won't break an unknown
set of systems that have implemented an unknown hybrid of legacy and
hardware reduced modes.
If someone can tell me that these mongrel ACPI systems continue
to run correctly when they run a Linux built with the
ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE flag set in the ACPICA code, I might at least
have a clue as to where the boundaries of compliance are.
Or, if such hardware is commercially available, where does one get it?
Otherwise, the only safe patch is 1/6, the Kconfig changes.
Thinking about this over night, I'll re-submit just the Kconfig changes
for now, and rethink the approach.
In the meantime... seriously, what devices are these with the weird
ACPI tables and hardware? How do I get one? Or access to one? A part
number or a vendor or something is kind of essential here; otherwise, I
can only surmise they are being done behind closed doors somewhere.
--
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------
--
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
