From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751021AbaB1Fdg (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:33:36 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:2011 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750719AbaB1Fdf (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:33:35 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,560,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="483336031" Message-ID: <53101FAB.3080609@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:33:31 +0800 From: "Li, Aubrey" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len.Brown@intel.com, "alan@linux.intel.com" , "Raj, Ashok" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed References: <530D558D.6090607@linux.intel.com> <1853937.5e0COHhnpP@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <1853937.5e0COHhnpP@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote: >> Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI >> install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in >> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working >> pm_power_off function hooked. >> >> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li >> --- >> drivers/acpi/sleep.c | 7 +++++-- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >> index b718806..0284d22 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c >> @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void) >> status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, &type_a, &type_b); >> if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) { >> sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1; > > Do we still want to set this if the check below fails? If so, then why? We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object Thanks, -Aubrey > >> - pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare; >> - pm_power_off = acpi_power_off; >> + if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address && >> + acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) { >> + pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare; >> + pm_power_off = acpi_power_off; >> + } >> } >> >> supported[0] = 0; >> >