Hi, > From: Peter Wu [mailto:peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Subject: Re: ACPI module-level code (MLC) not working? > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:35:07PM +0000, Zheng, Lv wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > From: Peter Wu [mailto:peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Subject: ACPI module-level code (MLC) not working? > > > > > > Hi Lv, > > > > > > According to some tests, setting acpi_gbl_parse_table_as_term_list to > > > TRUE does is not effective. The code within the If-block is still not > > > executed early enough or something else is wrong. > > > > > > Previously Rick had an issue with an Acer Aspire V7-582PG where the dGPU > > > could not be powered off and I demonstrated an isolated test case in > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg70069.html > > > > > > In Bartosz's case, the dGPU cannot be powered on (also using nouveau), > > > preventing suspend from working. Situation is as follows (tested with > > > Linux 3.16, 4.8.4, 4.9-rc2, 4.9-rc4): > > > > > > His Lenovo IdeaPad Z510 laptop (BIOS date 2014) enables power resources > > > and related _PR3 objects under the conditional If(_OSI("Windows 2013")). > > > Both with and without acpi_gbl_parse_table_as_term_list set to TRUE, the > > > module-level code is not loaded properly. Via a SSDT override, it was > > > confirmed that removing the If conditional results in the expected > > > behavior. > > > > > > Various details are given in https://github.com/Bumblebee-Project/bbswitch/issues/142 > > > including lots of dmesg logs (see posts at the bottom). > > > With above MLC flag set (v4.9-rc4): https://pastebin.com/raw/vCEPGezX > > > With SSDT override (v4.9-rc2): https://pastebin.com/raw/3Fsf2VPU > > > > I checked the post. > > It seems the current working way is: disabling _OSI(Windows 2013) which disables power resources. > > That is how Lenovo probably intended to use it (only add Power Resources > when Windows 8 is detected). > > > I have several questions related to this issue: > > 1. The following messages are prompt up when "acpi_gbl_parse_table_as_term_list = TRUE": > > [ 2.519113] ACPI Error: [\_SB_.PCI0.GFX0.DD02._BCL] Namespace lookup failure, AE_NOT_FOUND > (20160831/psargs-359) > > [ 2.519121] ACPI Error: Method parse/execution failed [\_SB.PCI0.PEG1.PEGP.DD02._BCL] (Node > ffff8802568d3cf8), AE_NOT_FOUND (20160831/psparse-543) > > How was this triggered? > > This comes from acpi_video.c, ssdt4.dsl contains a \_SB.PCI0.GFX0.DD02 > device with an _ADR method, but no _BCL one. It is not a regression > though, let's ignore this for now. > > > 2. I noticed the following statement: > > So, for some reason Lenovo has decided to give all tables the same name. > > The ACPI table override functionality matches possible candidates by signature, OEM ID and OEM > Revision ID which are all the same. > > As a result, the wrong SSDT is overridden. > > Could you provide the detail of the tables from the platform? > > What is the reason of doing such kind of craps in BIOS? > > I have no idea why Lenovo would do such a silly thing, but that is why > we had to patch tables.c with: > > if (existing_table->checksum != 0xAF) { > acpi_os_unmap_memory(table, ACPI_HEADER_SIZE); > pr_info("Skipping next table\n"); > goto next_table; > } > > This is of course an unacceptable hard-coded value, but it was needed in > as a quick hack. For a longterm solution, maybe we can name the table > files specially such that additional match conditions can be given. This > is a different issue though. > > What would you like to know about the platform? The acpidump is > available at > https://bugs.launchpad.net/lpbugreporter/+bug/752542/+attachment/4773050/+files/LENOVO-20287.tar.gz > > ssdt5.dsl is the file of interest, grep for "Windows 2013". The table headers are: DefinitionBlock ("dsdt.aml", "DSDT", 1, "LENOVO", "CB-01 ", 0x00000001) DefinitionBlock ("ssdt1.aml", "SSDT", 1, "LENOVO", "CB-01 ", 0x00000001) DefinitionBlock ("ssdt2.aml", "SSDT", 1, "LENOVO", "CB-01 ", 0x00000001) DefinitionBlock ("ssdt3.aml", "SSDT", 1, "LENOVO", "CB-01 ", 0x00000001) DefinitionBlock ("ssdt4.aml", "SSDT", 1, "LENOVO", "CB-01 ", 0x00000001) DefinitionBlock ("ssdt5.aml", "SSDT", 1, "LENOVO", "CB-01 ", 0x00000001) They will be deemed as different versions of the same table from linux ACPI's point of view. Whether override will be done or not depends on Linux version. In recent Linux, ssdt1.aml will be used (no override), while in old Linux, ssdt5.aml will be used (override). Let me ask further. 1. Should OSPM load only ssdt5.aml or load only ssdt1.aml, or load ssdt1.aml,ssdt2.aml,ssdt3.aml,ssdt4.aml,ssdt5.aml? 2. Can you confirm Windows behavior here via amli? Anyway, this is a special case that violates spec and seems to be aiming to trigger regressions against changed logic brought by me. No matter whether the change is reasonable. Linux only need a quirk for this platform. Thanks Lv > > Kind regards, > Peter > > > Thanks and best regards > > Lv > > > > > > > > If you would like a new bugzilla entry or have some patches to test, you > > > know where to find us :) > > > -- > > > Kind regards, > > > Peter Wu > > > https://lekensteyn.nl -- 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
