* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0 Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2019-06-19 12:24 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-06-20 7:57 ` Lee Jones
2019-06-19 12:26 ` Lee Jones
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2019-06-19 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon,
lorenzo.pieralisi, lee.jones, leif.lindholm, Sudeep Holla
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
Makes sense and looks simple to me.
Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
--
Regards,
Sudeep
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:24 ` Sudeep Holla
@ 2019-06-20 7:57 ` Lee Jones
2019-06-20 9:49 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2019-06-20 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sudeep Holla
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, catalin.marinas,
will.deacon, lorenzo.pieralisi, leif.lindholm
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> > are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> > that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> > which has a non-zero field on those systems.
> >
> > So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> > 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
> >
>
> Makes sense and looks simple to me.
>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Could we pleeeeease have this in for v5.3?
We have available, consumer-level platforms that rely on this change.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-20 7:57 ` Lee Jones
@ 2019-06-20 9:49 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-06-20 12:25 ` Lee Jones
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2019-06-20 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lee Jones
Cc: Sudeep Holla, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi,
catalin.marinas, will.deacon, leif.lindholm
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 08:57:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> > > are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> > > that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> > > which has a non-zero field on those systems.
> > >
> > > So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> > > 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
> > >
> >
> > Makes sense and looks simple to me.
> >
> > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>
> Could we pleeeeease have this in for v5.3?
>
> We have available, consumer-level platforms that rely on this change.
But we do not have the kernel infrastructure to support them so
I am fine with it but urgency is questionable as far as I am
concerned.
Lorenzo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-20 9:49 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
@ 2019-06-20 12:25 ` Lee Jones
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2019-06-20 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi
Cc: Sudeep Holla, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi,
catalin.marinas, will.deacon, leif.lindholm
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 08:57:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> > > > are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> > > > that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> > > > which has a non-zero field on those systems.
> > > >
> > > > So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> > > > 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Makes sense and looks simple to me.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> >
> > Could we pleeeeease have this in for v5.3?
> >
> > We have available, consumer-level platforms that rely on this change.
>
> But we do not have the kernel infrastructure to support them so
> I am fine with it but urgency is questionable as far as I am
> concerned.
Yes we do. At least, we will in v5.3.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0 Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-19 12:24 ` Sudeep Holla
@ 2019-06-19 12:26 ` Lee Jones
2019-06-20 7:53 ` Graeme Gregory
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2019-06-19 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon,
lorenzo.pieralisi, leif.lindholm
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
Tested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0 Ard Biesheuvel
2019-06-19 12:24 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-06-19 12:26 ` Lee Jones
@ 2019-06-20 7:53 ` Graeme Gregory
2019-06-20 9:43 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Graeme Gregory @ 2019-06-20 7:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon,
lorenzo.pieralisi, lee.jones, leif.lindholm
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
Makes sense, I did actually see this in the wild in SBSA machine too
once.
Reviewed-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
> }
>
> if (!(fadt->flags & ACPI_FADT_HW_REDUCED)) {
> --
> 2.20.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0 Ard Biesheuvel
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2019-06-20 7:53 ` Graeme Gregory
@ 2019-06-20 9:43 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-06-24 6:39 ` Hanjun Guo
2019-06-24 14:55 ` Catalin Marinas
5 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2019-06-20 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon,
lee.jones, leif.lindholm
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
AFAICS this should be harmless, so:
Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
> }
>
> if (!(fadt->flags & ACPI_FADT_HW_REDUCED)) {
> --
> 2.20.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0 Ard Biesheuvel
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2019-06-20 9:43 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
@ 2019-06-24 6:39 ` Hanjun Guo
2019-06-24 14:55 ` Catalin Marinas
5 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2019-06-24 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel
Cc: linux-acpi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon, lorenzo.pieralisi,
lee.jones, leif.lindholm
On 2019/6/19 20:18, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
Obviously it's a firmware bug, but should be harmless,
Acked-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0 Ard Biesheuvel
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2019-06-24 6:39 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2019-06-24 14:55 ` Catalin Marinas
5 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-06-24 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, will.deacon, lorenzo.pieralisi,
lee.jones, leif.lindholm
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Queued for 5.3. Thanks.
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread