* [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Correct \_SB._OSC bit definition for PRM
@ 2021-07-02 7:03 Aubrey Li
2021-07-02 7:03 ` [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: let BIOS fall back to legacy handling if PRM disabled Aubrey Li
2021-07-02 14:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Correct \_SB._OSC bit definition for PRM Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Aubrey Li @ 2021-07-02 7:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rjw, lenb; +Cc: linux-acpi, linux-kernel, Aubrey Li, Dan Williams, Aubrey Li
Accord to Platform Runtime Mechanism Specification v1.0 [1],
Page 42, _OSC bit (BIT 21) is used to indicate OS support of
platform runtime mechanism..
[1]: https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/Platform%20Runtime%20Mechanism%20-%20with%20legal%20notice.pdf
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
---
include/linux/acpi.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
index b338613..4df6a81 100644
--- a/include/linux/acpi.h
+++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
@@ -551,8 +551,8 @@ acpi_status acpi_run_osc(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_osc_context *context);
#define OSC_SB_OSLPI_SUPPORT 0x00000100
#define OSC_SB_CPC_DIVERSE_HIGH_SUPPORT 0x00001000
#define OSC_SB_GENERIC_INITIATOR_SUPPORT 0x00002000
-#define OSC_SB_PRM_SUPPORT 0x00020000
#define OSC_SB_NATIVE_USB4_SUPPORT 0x00040000
+#define OSC_SB_PRM_SUPPORT 0x00200000
extern bool osc_sb_apei_support_acked;
extern bool osc_pc_lpi_support_confirmed;
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: let BIOS fall back to legacy handling if PRM disabled
2021-07-02 7:03 [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Correct \_SB._OSC bit definition for PRM Aubrey Li
@ 2021-07-02 7:03 ` Aubrey Li
2021-07-02 11:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-07-02 14:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Correct \_SB._OSC bit definition for PRM Rafael J. Wysocki
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Aubrey Li @ 2021-07-02 7:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rjw, lenb; +Cc: linux-acpi, linux-kernel, Aubrey Li, Dan Williams, Aubrey Li
Based on _OSC PRM bit, BIOS can choose switch from legacy handling
to using PRM. So if CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT is disabled, this bit should
not be set to let BIOS fall back to the legacy handling (such as SMI).
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/acpi/bus.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
index 60fb6a84..30a3d4a 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
@@ -303,7 +303,9 @@ static void acpi_bus_osc_negotiate_platform_control(void)
capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_HOTPLUG_OST_SUPPORT;
capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PCLPI_SUPPORT;
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT
capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PRM_SUPPORT;
+#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_GENERIC_INITIATOR_SUPPORT;
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: let BIOS fall back to legacy handling if PRM disabled
2021-07-02 7:03 ` [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: let BIOS fall back to legacy handling if PRM disabled Aubrey Li
@ 2021-07-02 11:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-07-02 14:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-07-02 14:02 ` Aubrey Li
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2021-07-02 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aubrey Li
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Len Brown, ACPI Devel Maling List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Dan Williams, Aubrey Li
On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:03 AM Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Based on _OSC PRM bit, BIOS can choose switch from legacy handling
> to using PRM. So if CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT is disabled, this bit should
> not be set to let BIOS fall back to the legacy handling (such as SMI).
>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> index 60fb6a84..30a3d4a 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> @@ -303,7 +303,9 @@ static void acpi_bus_osc_negotiate_platform_control(void)
>
> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_HOTPLUG_OST_SUPPORT;
> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PCLPI_SUPPORT;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT
> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PRM_SUPPORT;
> +#endif
What about using if (IS_ENABLED()) instead of #ifdef?
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_GENERIC_INITIATOR_SUPPORT;
> --
> 2.7.4
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Correct \_SB._OSC bit definition for PRM
2021-07-02 7:03 [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Correct \_SB._OSC bit definition for PRM Aubrey Li
2021-07-02 7:03 ` [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: let BIOS fall back to legacy handling if PRM disabled Aubrey Li
@ 2021-07-02 14:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2021-07-02 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aubrey Li
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Len Brown, ACPI Devel Maling List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Dan Williams, Aubrey Li
On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:03 AM Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Accord to Platform Runtime Mechanism Specification v1.0 [1],
> Page 42, _OSC bit (BIT 21) is used to indicate OS support of
> platform runtime mechanism..
>
> [1]: https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/Platform%20Runtime%20Mechanism%20-%20with%20legal%20notice.pdf
>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> include/linux/acpi.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
> index b338613..4df6a81 100644
> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
> @@ -551,8 +551,8 @@ acpi_status acpi_run_osc(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_osc_context *context);
> #define OSC_SB_OSLPI_SUPPORT 0x00000100
> #define OSC_SB_CPC_DIVERSE_HIGH_SUPPORT 0x00001000
> #define OSC_SB_GENERIC_INITIATOR_SUPPORT 0x00002000
> -#define OSC_SB_PRM_SUPPORT 0x00020000
> #define OSC_SB_NATIVE_USB4_SUPPORT 0x00040000
> +#define OSC_SB_PRM_SUPPORT 0x00200000
>
> extern bool osc_sb_apei_support_acked;
> extern bool osc_pc_lpi_support_confirmed;
> --
Applied as 5.14-rc1 material, thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: let BIOS fall back to legacy handling if PRM disabled
2021-07-02 11:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2021-07-02 14:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-07-02 14:02 ` Aubrey Li
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2021-07-02 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aubrey Li
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Len Brown, ACPI Devel Maling List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Dan Williams, Aubrey Li
On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 1:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:03 AM Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Based on _OSC PRM bit, BIOS can choose switch from legacy handling
> > to using PRM. So if CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT is disabled, this bit should
> > not be set to let BIOS fall back to the legacy handling (such as SMI).
> >
> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/bus.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> > index 60fb6a84..30a3d4a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> > @@ -303,7 +303,9 @@ static void acpi_bus_osc_negotiate_platform_control(void)
> >
> > capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_HOTPLUG_OST_SUPPORT;
> > capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PCLPI_SUPPORT;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT
> > capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PRM_SUPPORT;
> > +#endif
>
> What about using if (IS_ENABLED()) instead of #ifdef?
I've made this change myself and applied the patch with a rewritten
changelog and under a different subject ("ACPI: Do not singal PRM
support if not enabled").
Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: let BIOS fall back to legacy handling if PRM disabled
2021-07-02 11:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-07-02 14:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2021-07-02 14:02 ` Aubrey Li
2021-07-02 14:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Aubrey Li @ 2021-07-02 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki, Aubrey Li
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Len Brown, ACPI Devel Maling List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Dan Williams
On 7/2/21 7:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:03 AM Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Based on _OSC PRM bit, BIOS can choose switch from legacy handling
>> to using PRM. So if CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT is disabled, this bit should
>> not be set to let BIOS fall back to the legacy handling (such as SMI).
>>
>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
>> index 60fb6a84..30a3d4a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
>> @@ -303,7 +303,9 @@ static void acpi_bus_osc_negotiate_platform_control(void)
>>
>> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_HOTPLUG_OST_SUPPORT;
>> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PCLPI_SUPPORT;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT
>> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PRM_SUPPORT;
>> +#endif
>
> What about using if (IS_ENABLED()) instead of #ifdef?
aha, sorry, using if (IS_ENABLED()) is better, will come up with a new version soon.
Thanks,
-Aubrey
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: let BIOS fall back to legacy handling if PRM disabled
2021-07-02 14:02 ` Aubrey Li
@ 2021-07-02 14:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-07-02 14:06 ` Aubrey Li
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2021-07-02 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aubrey Li
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Aubrey Li, Rafael J. Wysocki, Len Brown,
ACPI Devel Maling List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Dan Williams
On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 4:02 PM Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/2/21 7:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:03 AM Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Based on _OSC PRM bit, BIOS can choose switch from legacy handling
> >> to using PRM. So if CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT is disabled, this bit should
> >> not be set to let BIOS fall back to the legacy handling (such as SMI).
> >>
> >> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 2 ++
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> >> index 60fb6a84..30a3d4a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> >> @@ -303,7 +303,9 @@ static void acpi_bus_osc_negotiate_platform_control(void)
> >>
> >> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_HOTPLUG_OST_SUPPORT;
> >> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PCLPI_SUPPORT;
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT
> >> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PRM_SUPPORT;
> >> +#endif
> >
> > What about using if (IS_ENABLED()) instead of #ifdef?
>
> aha, sorry, using if (IS_ENABLED()) is better, will come up with a new version soon.
No need (see my other reply).
Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: let BIOS fall back to legacy handling if PRM disabled
2021-07-02 14:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2021-07-02 14:06 ` Aubrey Li
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Aubrey Li @ 2021-07-02 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Aubrey Li, Rafael J. Wysocki, Len Brown, ACPI Devel Maling List,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Dan Williams
On 7/2/21 10:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 4:02 PM Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/2/21 7:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:03 AM Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Based on _OSC PRM bit, BIOS can choose switch from legacy handling
>>>> to using PRM. So if CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT is disabled, this bit should
>>>> not be set to let BIOS fall back to the legacy handling (such as SMI).
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 2 ++
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
>>>> index 60fb6a84..30a3d4a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
>>>> @@ -303,7 +303,9 @@ static void acpi_bus_osc_negotiate_platform_control(void)
>>>>
>>>> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_HOTPLUG_OST_SUPPORT;
>>>> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PCLPI_SUPPORT;
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT
>>>> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PRM_SUPPORT;
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> What about using if (IS_ENABLED()) instead of #ifdef?
>>
>> aha, sorry, using if (IS_ENABLED()) is better, will come up with a new version soon.
>
> No need (see my other reply).
>
> Thanks!
>
Okay, thanks Rafael!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-07-02 14:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-07-02 7:03 [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Correct \_SB._OSC bit definition for PRM Aubrey Li
2021-07-02 7:03 ` [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: let BIOS fall back to legacy handling if PRM disabled Aubrey Li
2021-07-02 11:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-07-02 14:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-07-02 14:02 ` Aubrey Li
2021-07-02 14:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-07-02 14:06 ` Aubrey Li
2021-07-02 14:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Correct \_SB._OSC bit definition for PRM Rafael J. Wysocki
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.