On 01/29/2018, 01:56 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > ------------------ > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > commit c2a6bbaf0c5f90463a7011a295bbdb7e33c80b51 upstream. > > The way acpi_find_child_device() works currently is that, if there > are two (or more) devices with the same _ADR value in the same > namespace scope (which is not specifically allowed by the spec and > the OS behavior in that case is not defined), the first one of them > found to be present (with the help of _STA) will be returned. > > This covers the majority of cases, but is not sufficient if some of > the devices in question have a _HID (or _CID) returning some valid > ACPI/PNP device IDs (which is disallowed by the spec) and the > ASL writers' expectation appears to be that the OS will match > devices without a valid ACPI/PNP device ID against a given bus > address first. > > To cover this special case as well, modify find_child_checks() > to prefer devices without ACPI/PNP device IDs over devices that > have them. > > Suggested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > Tested-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx> You seem you took this from SLE12-SP2? But where did you take the upstream commit SHA from? In SLE, I have "Git-commit: fdad4e7a876a2..." which is the correct SHA of this patch. The above c2a6bbaf0c is a different patch. So are your scripts broken or is this a manual oversight? > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > drivers/acpi/glue.c | 12 ++++++------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > --- a/drivers/acpi/glue.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/glue.c > @@ -99,13 +99,13 @@ static int find_child_checks(struct acpi > return -ENODEV; > > /* > - * If the device has a _HID (or _CID) returning a valid ACPI/PNP > - * device ID, it is better to make it look less attractive here, so that > - * the other device with the same _ADR value (that may not have a valid > - * device ID) can be matched going forward. [This means a second spec > - * violation in a row, so whatever we do here is best effort anyway.] > + * If the device has a _HID returning a valid ACPI/PNP device ID, it is > + * better to make it look less attractive here, so that the other device > + * with the same _ADR value (that may not have a valid device ID) can be > + * matched going forward. [This means a second spec violation in a row, > + * so whatever we do here is best effort anyway.] > */ > - return sta_present && list_empty(&adev->pnp.ids) ? > + return sta_present && !adev->pnp.type.platform_id ? > FIND_CHILD_MAX_SCORE : FIND_CHILD_MIN_SCORE; > } > > > -- js suse labs