From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752515AbbJLNEo (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:04:44 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52]:36701 "EHLO mail-pa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752471AbbJLNEl (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:04:41 -0400 Message-ID: <561BAFE0.9090401@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:04:32 +0800 From: Hanjun Guo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sudeep Holla , Pat Erley , Al Stone , "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, patches@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Hanjun Guo , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks References: <1443570346-15378-1-git-send-email-al.stone@linaro.org> <560BA4C9.7090607@huawei.com> <560C0968.6020904@redhat.com> <2808057.teMg2oCLf6@vostro.rjw.lan> <5612AF64.4060900@redhat.com> <561B2442.9050600@erley.org> <561B2DAD.5070601@linaro.org> <561B2FCA.1010504@erley.org> <561B5B7E.6080901@linaro.org> <561B8114.4060800@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <561B8114.4060800@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/12/2015 05:44 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 12/10/15 08:04, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >> >> Thanks! I think I had the right guess, the MADT revision is not right >> for ACPI 4.0: >> >> [000h 0000 4] Signature : "APIC" [Multiple APIC >> Description Table (MADT)] >> [004h 0004 4] Table Length : 000000BC >> [008h 0008 1] *Revision : 01* >> >> I encountered such problem before because the table was just copied from >> previous version, and without the update for table revision. >> >> I think we may need to ignore the table revision for x86, but restrict >> it for ARM64, I'd like Al and Rafael's suggestion before I send out a >> patch. >> > > Instead of just removing the check completely on x86, IMO restrict it to > some newer/later version of ACPI so you can still force vendors to fix > their ACPI tables at-least in future. I agree. > > It would be good to get such sanity check in the tools used to build > those tables, but yes since such static tables can be built in many > ways, its difficult to deal it in all those tools. At least we can check that in the FWTS. :) Thanks Hanjun