On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
>> install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
>> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
>> pm_power_off function hooked.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/sleep.c | 7 +++++--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>> index b718806..0284d22 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>> @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
>> status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, &type_a, &type_b);
>> if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
>> sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
>
> Do we still want to set this if the check below fails? If so, then why?
We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object
Thanks,
-Aubrey
>
>> - pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>> - pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
>> + if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
>> + acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
>> + pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>> + pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> supported[0] = 0;
>>
>
--
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
