>-----Original Message-----
>From: devel-bounces(a)acpica.org [mailto:devel-bounces(a)acpica.org] On Behalf
>Of Thomas Renninger
>Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 6:10 AM
>To: devel(a)acpica.org
>Subject: [Devel] Reserved method (_PLD) is a buffer instead of a package
>
>Hi,
>
>I found this when compiling the DSDT from this dump:
>https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=27016
>from this bug:
>https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16072
>
>The iasl error is:
>DSDT.modif.dsl  6635:                         Name (_PLD, Buffer (0x10)
>Error    4080 -       Invalid object type for reserved name, must be ^
>(Package)
>
>
>ACPI spec says (3.0b):
>====================
>6.1.6 _PLD (Physical Device Location)
>
>The _PLD method returns data...
>
>This method returns a package containing, a single
>or multiple buffer entries. At least one buffer entry
>must be returned using the bit definitions below.
>====================
>
>So I expect the BIOS (see code snippet below) is wrong, because it
>returns a plain buffer, instead of a Package of buffer(s)?
>

Yes.


_PLD is defined to be a variable-length Package of Buffer objects.





>I could get rid of the error by explicitly declaring the buffer and
>returning it (which should still be wrong, because a Package of
>buffer(s) should get returned?).
>
>iasl should either:
>  - complain about both (a named buffer is declared and the named
>    object is returned or if simply a (unnamed) buffer is returned)
>  - or if in case returning a plain buffer is accepted/workarounded,
>    it should accept both versions.
>

Newer versions of iASL will in fact complain about a named buffer that is returned, I think.



>Argl, it's hard to get this into words, best you just have a look at below
>code snippets...
>
>Be aware that this seem to be a rather new machine/BIOS.
>It could be that neither Linux nor Windows make use of _PLD (don't know)
>and these guys may have to fix that up anyway (return a package...).
>
>It would be great to get a statement should fix this and if this is the
>case,
>whether my patch at the very end of the mail is the correct way to do that.
>

Yes, your change at the end is correct.


The ACPICA auto-repair code should be able to repair this problem. If a buffer is returned, it will wrap a package object around it.

That doesn't change the fact that the original ASL is incorrect.



>Thanks,
>
>      Thomas
>
>The affected ASL code:
>=========================
>Name (_ADR, Zero)
>                    Device (PRT1)
>                    {
>                        Name (_ADR, One)
>                        Name (_UPC, Package (0x04)
>                        {
>                            0xFF,
>                            Zero,
>                            Zero,
>                            Zero
>                        })
>                        Name (_PLD, Buffer (0x10)
>                        {
>                            /* 0000 */    0x81, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>                            /* 0008 */    0x31, 0x1C, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>0x00, 0x00, 0x00
>                        })
>                    }
>=========================
>
>The patch that fixes the error, but the code is still not correct (plain
>buffer is
>returned instead of a package containing the buffer):
>=========================
>--- DSDT.dsl	2010-07-05 13:14:20.945010000 +0200
>+++ DSDT.modif.dsl	2010-07-05 13:56:56.478132000 +0200
>@@ -6601,6 +6601,11 @@
>                 Device (HU01)
>                 {
>                     Name (_ADR, Zero)
>+		    Name (PLDB, Buffer (0x10)
>+                    {
>+                            /* 0000 */    0x81, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>+                            /* 0008 */    0x31, 0x1C, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>0x00, 0x00, 0x00
>+                    })
>                     Device (PRT1)
>                     {
>                         Name (_ADR, One)
>@@ -6611,11 +6616,10 @@
>                             Zero,
>                             Zero
>                         })
>-                        Name (_PLD, Buffer (0x10)
>+                        Method (_PLD, 0, NotSerialized)
>                         {
>-                            /* 0000 */    0x81, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>-                            /* 0008 */    0x31, 0x1C, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>0x00, 0x00, 0x00
>-                        })
>+			    return (PLDB)
>+                        }
>                     }
>
>                     Device (PRT2)
>=========================
>
>The patch which works and should be the correct fix:
>=========================
>--- DSDT.dsl	2010-07-05 13:14:20.945010000 +0200
>+++ DSDT.modif.dsl	2010-07-05 14:34:23.335580000 +0200
>
>@@ -6628,10 +6635,13 @@
>                             Zero,
>                             Zero
>                         })
>-                        Name (_PLD, Buffer (0x10)
>+                        Name (_PLD, Package (0x1)
>                         {
>-                            /* 0000 */    0x81, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>-                            /* 0008 */    0x30, 0x1C, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>0x00, 0x00, 0x00
>+                            Buffer (0x10)
>+                            {
>+                                /* 0000 */    0x81, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
>+                                /* 0008 */    0x30, 0x1C, 0x00, 0x00,
>0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
>+                            }
>                         })
>                     }
>                 }
>=========================
>_______________________________________________
>Devel mailing list
>Devel(a)acpica.org
>http://lists.acpica.org/listinfo/devel