Hi tglx,
At 03/01/2017 07:12 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Dou Liyang wrote:
In ACPI spec, we can declare processors using both Processor and
Device operator. And before we use the ACPI table, we should check
the correctness for all processors in ACPI namespace.
But, Currently, the check handle is just include only the processors
which are declared by Processor operator. It misses the processors
declared by Device operator.
The patch adds the case of Device operator.
See the comments in the previous mails. They apply here as well.
Though this changelog is actively confusing. The subject line says:
acpi: Fix the check handle in case of declaring processors using the Device
operator
Aside of being a way too long subject, it suggests that there is just a
missing check for the case where a processor is declared via the Device
operator. But that's not what the patch is doing.
It implements the distinction between Device and Processor operator, which
is missing in acpi_processor_ids_walk() right now.
So the proper changelog (if I understand the patch correctly) would be:
Subject: acpi/processor: Implement DEVICE operator for processor enumeration
ACPI allows to declare processors either with the PROCESSOR or with the
DEVICE operator. The current implementation handles only the PROCESSOR
operator.
On a system which uses the DEVICE operator for processor enumeration the
evaluation fails.
Check for the ACPI type of the ACPI handle and evaluate PROCESSOR and
DEVICE types seperately.
Hmm?
Yes, you are right. I didn't explain clearly.
I will modify in my next version.
{
acpi_status status;
+ acpi_object_type acpi_type;
+ unsigned long long uid;
union acpi_object object = { 0 };
struct acpi_buffer buffer = { sizeof(union acpi_object), &object };
- status = acpi_evaluate_object(handle, NULL, NULL, &buffer);
- if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
- acpi_handle_info(handle, "Not get the processor object\n");
- else
- processor_validated_ids_update(object.processor.proc_id);
+ status = acpi_get_type(handle, &acpi_type);
Shouldn't the status be checked here?
oops, Yes. Need to be checked.
+ switch (acpi_type) {
+ case ACPI_TYPE_PROCESSOR:
+ status = acpi_evaluate_object(handle, NULL, NULL, &buffer);
+ if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
+ acpi_handle_info(handle, "Not get the processor object\n");
+ else
+ processor_validated_ids_update(
+ object.processor.proc_id);
+ break;
+ case ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE:
+ status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "_UID", NULL, &uid);
+ if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
+ return false;
+ processor_validated_ids_update(uid);
+ break;
+ default:
+ return false;
This is inconsistent vs. the failure handling in the PROCESSOR and DEVICE
case and the default case does not give any information either.
What about this:
switch (acpi_type) {
case ACPI_TYPE_PROCESSOR:
status = acpi_evaluate_object(handle, NULL, NULL, &buffer);
if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
goto err;
uid = object.processor.proc_id;
break;
case ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE:
status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "_UID", NULL, &uid);
if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
goto err;
break;
default:
goto err;
}
processor_validated_ids_update(uid);
return true;
err:
acpi_handle_info(handle, "Invalid processor object\n");
return false;
}
Looks good than mine.
Thanks,
Liyang.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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
