Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 02:20:51 PM Al Stone wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------020400080004050109020606
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> On 10/12/2015 10:06 PM, Pat Erley wrote:
> > On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Al Stone wrote:
> >> On 10/11/2015 09:58 PM, Pat Erley wrote:
> >>> On 10/11/2015 08:49 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>>> On 10/12/2015 11:08 AM, Pat Erley wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/05/2015 10:12 AM, Al Stone wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/05/2015 07:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:10:16 AM Al Stone wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 09/30/2015 03:00 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2015/9/30 7:45, Al Stone wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> NB: this patch set is for use against the linux-pm bleeding edge
> >>>>>>>>>> branch.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [snip...]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For this patch set,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>> Hanjun
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks, Hanjun!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Series applied, thanks!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rafael
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks, Rafael!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just decided to test out linux-next (to see the new nouveau cleanups).
> >>>>> This change set prevents my Lenovo W510 from booting properly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reverting: 7494b0 "ACPI: add in a bad_madt_entry() function to
> >>>>> eventually replace the macro"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gets the system booting again.  I'm attaching my dmesg from the failed
> >>>>> boot, who wants the acpidump?
> >>>>
> >>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: undefined version for either FADT 4.0 or MADT 1
> >>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: Error parsing LAPIC address override entry
> >>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: Invalid BIOS MADT, disabling ACPI
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems the MADT revision is not right, could you dump the ACPI MADT
> >>>> (APIC) table and send it out? I will take a look :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Hanjun
> >>>
> >>> Here ya go, enjoy.  Feel free to CC me on any patches that might fix it.
> >>
> >> Pat,
> >>
> >> Would you mind sending a copy of the FADT, also, please?  The first of the
> >> ACPI messages is a check of version correspondence between the FADT and MADT,
> >> while the second message is from looking at just an MADT subtable.  Thanks
> >> for sending the MADT out -- that helps me quite a lot in thinking this through.
> >>
> >> BTW, whoever is providing the BIOS (Lenovo, I assume) may want to have a look
> >> at these, also:
> >>
> >> [    0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): 32/64X length mismatch in
> >> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 16/32 (20150818/tbfadt-623)
> >> [    0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): Invalid length for
> >> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 32, using default 16 (20150818/tbfadt-704)
> >>
> >> Not inherently dangerous, but definitely sloppy and mind-numbingly easy to
> >> avoid, IIRC.
> >>
> > 
> > Here ya go.
> 
> Okay.  There's just a lot of weird stuff out there in ACPI-land.  I've
> attached four minor fixes for the special cases that have been reported
> (well, the last one is actually a fix for a typo in the spec, but just
> the same...).
> 
> These should apply on top of linux-next; would you mind trying them out
> to make sure I didn't break anything else on your laptop?  If they behave
> as I hope they will, I think I'll have covered all the places where the
> checking of MADT subtables needs to be be relaxed a bit.  These work for
> me on arm64, but if they work for you and a couple of other testers, then
> I'll send them to Rafael properly.

Well, you might as well submit them properly right away, so I could pick
them up and put them into my linux-next branch, which then might make it
easier for some people to test them.

Thanks,
Rafael