From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: "Kuppuswamy,
Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ashok.raj@intel.com, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 10/11] PCI/DPC: Add Error Disconnect Recover (EDR) support
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 17:36:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200326223637.GA106135@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f71c989b-b8f8-3437-b086-a97c2aa1e2c5@linux.intel.com>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 06:00:31PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> On 3/24/20 2:37 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > This is really ugly. What's the story on this firmware? It sounds
> > defective to me.
>
> I think there is no defined standard for this. I have checked few
> _DSM implementations. Some of them return default value and some
> don't. But atleast in the test hardware I use, we need this check.
I agree that I don't see anything in the ACPI spec v6.3 about what
should happen if we supply a Function Index that isn't supported.
That looks like a hole in the spec.
> > Or is everybody that uses _DSM supposed to check before evaluating it?
>
> I think its safer to do this check.
>
> > E.g.,
> >
> > if (!acpi_check_dsm(...))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm(...);
> >
> > If everybody is supposed to do this, it seems like the check part
> > should be moved into acpi_evaluate_dsm().
So my question, and I guess this is really for Rafael, is that since
it seems like *everybody* needs to use acpi_check_dsm() in order to
use acpi_evaluate_dsm() safely, why don't we move the check *into*
acpi_evaluate_dsm()?
It's just error prone if we expect everybody to call both interfaces.
Bjorn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-26 22:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-24 0:25 [PATCH v18 00/11] Add Error Disconnect Recover (EDR) support sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-24 0:25 ` [PATCH v18 01/11] PCI/ERR: Update error status after reset_link() sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-24 0:25 ` [PATCH v18 02/11] PCI: move {pciehp,shpchp}_is_native() definitions to pci.c sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v18 03/11] PCI/DPC: Fix DPC recovery issue in non hotplug case sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-24 23:49 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-25 1:17 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-03-28 17:10 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-28 22:04 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-03-28 22:21 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-28 22:40 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-03-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v18 04/11] PCI/DPC: Move DPC data into struct pci_dev sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v18 05/11] PCI/ERR: Remove service dependency in pcie_do_recovery() sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-28 21:12 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-03-28 21:32 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-28 21:55 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-03-28 22:16 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v18 06/11] PCI/ERR: Return status of pcie_do_recovery() sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v18 07/11] PCI/DPC: Cache DPC capabilities in pci_init_capabilities() sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v18 08/11] PCI/AER: Add pci_aer_raw_clear_status() to unconditionally clear Error Status sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v18 09/11] PCI/DPC: Expose dpc_process_error(), dpc_reset_link() for use by EDR sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v18 10/11] PCI/DPC: Add Error Disconnect Recover (EDR) support sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-24 21:37 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-25 1:00 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
2020-03-26 22:36 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2024-04-11 18:07 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2024-04-11 19:16 ` Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2020-03-24 0:26 ` [PATCH v18 11/11] PCI/AER: Rationalize error status register clearing sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy
2020-03-31 15:28 ` [PATCH v18 00/11] Add Error Disconnect Recover (EDR) support Bjorn Helgaas
2020-03-31 16:28 ` Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200326223637.GA106135@google.com \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).