From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0956C432C3 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 06:45:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01AA20718 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 06:45:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726473AbfKNGp3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2019 01:45:29 -0500 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35]:43136 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725807AbfKNGp3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2019 01:45:29 -0500 Received: from DGGEMS410-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8463BDDCDDA6BFBF7016; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:45:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.177.251.225) by DGGEMS410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:45:16 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: sysfs: Change ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX to 0x100 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: , , , , "hushiyuan@huawei.com" , "linfeilong@huawei.com" References: <8bdc7a86-e464-9c46-3d40-4f3c75111ce6@huawei.com> <2931286.GRae9fBGx2@kreacher> From: Yunfeng Ye Message-ID: <2af56bf7-aff8-b4f5-b4cf-06743e906695@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:45:02 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2931286.GRae9fBGx2@kreacher> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.251.225] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 2019/11/14 7:21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 3:35:25 PM CET Yunfeng Ye wrote: >> There are two problems after commit 0f27cff8597d ("ACPI: sysfs: Make >> ACPI GPE mask kernel parameter cover all GPEs"): >> >> 1. ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX is changed from 0x80 to 0xff, so the check >> condition "gpe > ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX" is not valid because the type of >> gpe is u8. >> >> 2. The size of bitmap is ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX, so it is not support the >> num 255 for gpe. >> >> Update the macro ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX to 0x100, and change the type of >> gpe to u32, also modify the checking condition for gpe. >> >> Bye the way, update the docs for kernel parameter acpi_mask_gpe. >> >> Fixes: 0f27cff8597d ("ACPI: sysfs: Make ACPI GPE mask kernel parameter cover all GPEs") >> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye > > AFAICS this really is about supporting the masking of GPE 0xFF. >>> --- >> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 1 + >> drivers/acpi/sysfs.c | 8 ++++---- >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >> index a84a83f8881e..dd878e2491e1 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >> @@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ >> This facility can be used to prevent such uncontrolled >> GPE floodings. >> Format: >> + Support masking of GPEs numbered from 0x00 to 0xff > > Why not just say "Format: " ? > ok, thanks. >> >> acpi_no_auto_serialize [HW,ACPI] >> Disable auto-serialization of AML methods >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sysfs.c b/drivers/acpi/sysfs.c >> index 75948a3f1a20..3c3302583d78 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/sysfs.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sysfs.c >> @@ -819,14 +819,14 @@ static ssize_t counter_set(struct kobject *kobj, >> * interface: >> * echo unmask > /sys/firmware/acpi/interrupts/gpe00 >> */ >> -#define ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX 0xFF >> +#define ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX 0x100 > > So this is the only change that's necessary AFAICS. > >> static DECLARE_BITMAP(acpi_masked_gpes_map, ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX) __initdata; >> >> static int __init acpi_gpe_set_masked_gpes(char *val) >> { >> - u8 gpe; >> + u32 gpe; >> >> - if (kstrtou8(val, 0, &gpe) || gpe > ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX) > > And here you can drop the ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX check and the rest can remain > as is. > I will modify as your suggestion, thanks. >> + if (kstrtouint(val, 0, &gpe) || gpe >= ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX) >> return -EINVAL; >> set_bit(gpe, acpi_masked_gpes_map); >> >> @@ -838,7 +838,7 @@ void __init acpi_gpe_apply_masked_gpes(void) >> { >> acpi_handle handle; >> acpi_status status; >> - u8 gpe; >> + u32 gpe; >> >> for_each_set_bit(gpe, acpi_masked_gpes_map, ACPI_MASKABLE_GPE_MAX) { >> status = acpi_get_gpe_device(gpe, &handle); >> > > > > > > . >