From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=vwdz=N7=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 B6A12C32788
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 22:11:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C98020C01
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 22:11:27 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="zEB/rkfD"
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6C98020C01
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4300KT2Y3fzF3Gv
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:11:25 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
	dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="zEB/rkfD";
	dkim-atps=neutral
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org
 (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=okaya@kernel.org;
 receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key;
 unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="zEB/rkfD"; 
 dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4300GH0ypFzF3LY
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:08:39 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: from [10.80.45.159] (unknown [71.69.156.42])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3294B20C01;
 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 22:08:35 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org;
 s=default; t=1542751717;
 bh=Nj6iELAkQQxYCZbhsXDSV8wHQH7XanhdNLzW76MFiZA=;
 h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From;
 b=zEB/rkfD7uhAxxwED87kSsx9KhTQrETujXmrg0Q/VtgiF29D7+AZkoBKUwMcKWNO2
 fLlSb4fK3jyr8AH/SVpelihMXL7nR+gF2aMKy6x8QyHQtOkduj6mkeq/yx+Ff3ErnH
 ZpThzDvYwZSlbEVoTd595KlXohV8PCqoaoNwE/7s=
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns
 AER
To: Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com, mr.nuke.me@gmail.com, keith.busch@intel.com
References: <20181115231605.24352-1-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com>
 <CABo9ajD5GJY7MrMjQc3hE=4tpPKpeceMtVEHwCwgjrvJUYjLvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181119165318.GB26595@localhost.localdomain>
 <74f2c527-0890-5e14-5e2d-48934a42dae6@kernel.org>
 <ab2427f1-c1f0-68fe-5335-1494caafdcbb@kernel.org>
 <20181119174127.GE26595@localhost.localdomain>
 <ef0a24e4-906e-f6df-c646-1fe47ea0dcc0@kernel.org>
 <20181119181051.GA26707@localhost.localdomain>
 <c0d6535f-324b-557a-3d0e-ccec070459a7@kernel.org>
 <3f923367-2cc1-c0d6-bca6-bf9a03d1b9ca@gmail.com>
 <ef6b19de-dd18-850f-4db9-8ab71b975e94@kernel.org>
 <bb575cfdcd0a4c50b489fb16eccfbff2@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
 <84013a8a-287d-d700-6710-91cc35f507c8@kernel.org>
 <9c9531c7efb846438f03f744b9afc466@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
 <3b18a9fa-7bdd-0fb4-285d-4efb454be50a@kernel.org>
 <e86f04ef8c054d61969862a6e7b72d0d@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
 <314e59da-48e1-545b-3ee9-6e5056b90fd9@kernel.org>
 <4728316eb84446358e0a07bbf1e42b57@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <bac2c78a-cd56-7287-e4fd-6042e9b3432c@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:08:33 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4728316eb84446358e0a07bbf1e42b57@ausx13mps321.AMER.DELL.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: baicar.tyler@gmail.com, sbobroff@linux.ibm.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
 rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shyam.Iyer@dell.com,
 linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lukas@wunner.de, oohall@gmail.com,
 Austin.Bolen@dell.com, bhelgaas@google.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
 lenb@kernel.org
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On 11/20/2018 4:46 PM, Alex_Gagniuc@Dellteam.com wrote:
> Now, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the firmware on those
> system's is broken, and it didn't intend to give the OS control of AER.
> OSPM checking HEST instead of _OSC is still wrong, according to the
> spec. Two wrongs don't make a right, they just don't crash.
> 
> I think the correct way is to identify those broken systems, and add
> quirks for them. Continuing to have inconsistent and over-complicated
> logic that is not spec compliant is not any better.

Remember that both _OSC and HEST are in the ACPI specification. I don't
think there is a consensus on what is "wrong".

There is certainly a need for spec clarification.

One version is:

"if HEST table is present, ignore _OSC"

or

Another version is:

"if HEST table is present, make sure that FW sets _OSC bit for AER to
false. Otherwise, warn like crazy that this BIOS is broken and needs
an update and can cause all sorts of trouble"

I can see both points of view. The second one can also be worked around
by an SMBIOS quirk too as you suggested. Counting the number of quirks
and random bug reports will be an interesting exercise / regression.

I followed the ASWG thread yesterday. There will be a meeting next week to
discuss this.

My preference is not to introduce new behavior/regression to the kernel.