From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 83FA7C33CB1 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (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 525712075B for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="CfjuZVpH" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 525712075B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:41960 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1is5AS-000868-Bx for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:26:36 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41968) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1is59F-0006UE-AH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:25:22 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1is59E-000479-22 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:25:21 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:32463 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1is59D-00046v-VG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:25:20 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1579181119; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Omd1dymP/aA8I6I3SnZ+1r2udZhBpsCMI9jYmRDtIBA=; b=CfjuZVpH3siw4qbgU537HdRid9EPmWqftot/32nXjrPMyc3/D4TD3vqUq183nSqCcyYA8c Q3yin6Xle9zDCw70a3dG+0ghqFExUcjQogXYhHkQa+0k8SGt8YbZ8/z4EfwCuXGsdQtFFq 18WqAqapUm0Y6EKBnmAngEM1jHaQWZM= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-247-nCSoRUIWOliI5kw8TDdvew-1; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:25:15 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FFA21902EA4; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:25:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.2.114]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36AD988894; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:25:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:25:08 +0100 From: Igor Mammedov To: Guoheyi Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm/virt/acpi: remove _ADR from devices identified by _HID Message-ID: <20200116142508.1d82af31@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20191219064759.35053-1-guoheyi@huawei.com> <20191219064759.35053-3-guoheyi@huawei.com> <20200105072504-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20200105074308-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-MC-Unique: nCSoRUIWOliI5kw8TDdvew-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 207.211.31.120 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peter Maydell , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Shannon Zhao , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Corey Minyard , wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 19:56:19 +0800 Guoheyi wrote: > =E5=9C=A8 2020/1/5 20:53, Michael S. Tsirkin =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: > > On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 07:34:01AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: =20 > >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 02:47:59PM +0800, Heyi Guo wrote: =20 > >>> According to ACPI spec, _ADR should be used for device which is on a > >>> bus that has a standard enumeration algorithm. It does not make sense > >>> to have a _ADR object for devices which already have _HID and will be > >>> enumerated by OSPM. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Heyi Guo =20 > >> Are you sure? I would think this depends on the ID and the device > >> really. E.g. PCI devices all are expected to have _ADR and some of the= m > >> have a _HID. =20 > > > > To clarify I am not commenting on patches. > > The spec says this: > > =096.1.5 _HID (Hardware ID) > > > > =09This object is used to supply OSPM with the device=E2=80=99s PNP ID = or ACPI ID. 1 > > > > =09When describing a platform, use of any _HID objects is optional. How= ever, a _HID object must be > > > > =09used to describe any device that will be enumerated by OSPM. OSPM on= ly enumerates a device > > > > =09when no bus enumerator can detect the device ID. For example, device= s on an ISA bus are > > > > =09enumerated by OSPM. Use the _ADR object to describe devices enumerat= ed by bus enumerators > > > > =09other than OSPM. > > > > > > Note: "detect the device ID" not "enumerate the device" which I think > > means there's a driver matching this vendor/device ID. > > > > So it seems fine to have _ADR so device is enumerated, and still have > > _HID e.g. so ACPI driver can be loaded as fallback if there's > > no bus driver. > > > > > > Note I am not saying the patch itself is not correct. > > Maybe these devices are not on any standard bus and that > > is why they should not have _ADR? I have not looked. > > > > I am just saying that spec does not seem to imply _HID and _ADR > > can't coexist. =20 >=20 > More reading on the spec, I found a statement as below=20 > (https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6_3_May16.pdf,=20 > section 6.1, on top of page 343): I'd replace 'It does not make sense ...' sentence with pointer to spec and quote below in commit message. > A device object must contain either an _HID object or an _ADR object,=20 > but should not contain both [...]