* [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
@ 2019-06-19 12:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2019-06-19 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Cc: lorenzo.pieralisi, Ard Biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, will.deacon,
leif.lindholm, linux-acpi, lee.jones
Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
which has a non-zero field on those systems.
So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
@@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
*/
if (table->revision < 5 ||
(table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
- pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
+ pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
- ret = -EINVAL;
- goto out;
+
+ if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
}
if (!(fadt->flags & ACPI_FADT_HW_REDUCED)) {
--
2.20.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2019-06-19 12:24 ` Sudeep Holla
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2019-06-19 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon,
lorenzo.pieralisi, lee.jones, leif.lindholm, Sudeep Holla
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
Makes sense and looks simple to me.
Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
--
Regards,
Sudeep
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
@ 2019-06-19 12:24 ` Sudeep Holla
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2019-06-19 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: lorenzo.pieralisi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon, leif.lindholm,
linux-acpi, Sudeep Holla, lee.jones, linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
Makes sense and looks simple to me.
Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
--
Regards,
Sudeep
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:24 ` Sudeep Holla
@ 2019-06-20 7:57 ` Lee Jones
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2019-06-20 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sudeep Holla
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, catalin.marinas,
will.deacon, lorenzo.pieralisi, leif.lindholm
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> > are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> > that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> > which has a non-zero field on those systems.
> >
> > So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> > 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
> >
>
> Makes sense and looks simple to me.
>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Could we pleeeeease have this in for v5.3?
We have available, consumer-level platforms that rely on this change.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
@ 2019-06-20 7:57 ` Lee Jones
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2019-06-20 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sudeep Holla
Cc: lorenzo.pieralisi, Ard Biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, will.deacon,
leif.lindholm, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> > are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> > that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> > which has a non-zero field on those systems.
> >
> > So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> > 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
> >
>
> Makes sense and looks simple to me.
>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Could we pleeeeease have this in for v5.3?
We have available, consumer-level platforms that rely on this change.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-20 7:57 ` Lee Jones
@ 2019-06-20 9:49 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2019-06-20 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lee Jones
Cc: Sudeep Holla, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi,
catalin.marinas, will.deacon, leif.lindholm
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 08:57:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> > > are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> > > that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> > > which has a non-zero field on those systems.
> > >
> > > So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> > > 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
> > >
> >
> > Makes sense and looks simple to me.
> >
> > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>
> Could we pleeeeease have this in for v5.3?
>
> We have available, consumer-level platforms that rely on this change.
But we do not have the kernel infrastructure to support them so
I am fine with it but urgency is questionable as far as I am
concerned.
Lorenzo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
@ 2019-06-20 9:49 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2019-06-20 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lee Jones
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, will.deacon, leif.lindholm,
linux-acpi, Sudeep Holla, linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 08:57:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> > > are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> > > that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> > > which has a non-zero field on those systems.
> > >
> > > So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> > > 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
> > >
> >
> > Makes sense and looks simple to me.
> >
> > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>
> Could we pleeeeease have this in for v5.3?
>
> We have available, consumer-level platforms that rely on this change.
But we do not have the kernel infrastructure to support them so
I am fine with it but urgency is questionable as far as I am
concerned.
Lorenzo
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-20 9:49 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
@ 2019-06-20 12:25 ` Lee Jones
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2019-06-20 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi
Cc: Sudeep Holla, Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi,
catalin.marinas, will.deacon, leif.lindholm
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 08:57:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> > > > are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> > > > that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> > > > which has a non-zero field on those systems.
> > > >
> > > > So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> > > > 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Makes sense and looks simple to me.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> >
> > Could we pleeeeease have this in for v5.3?
> >
> > We have available, consumer-level platforms that rely on this change.
>
> But we do not have the kernel infrastructure to support them so
> I am fine with it but urgency is questionable as far as I am
> concerned.
Yes we do. At least, we will in v5.3.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
@ 2019-06-20 12:25 ` Lee Jones
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2019-06-20 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, catalin.marinas, will.deacon, leif.lindholm,
linux-acpi, Sudeep Holla, linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 08:57:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> > > > are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> > > > that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> > > > which has a non-zero field on those systems.
> > > >
> > > > So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> > > > 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Makes sense and looks simple to me.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> >
> > Could we pleeeeease have this in for v5.3?
> >
> > We have available, consumer-level platforms that rely on this change.
>
> But we do not have the kernel infrastructure to support them so
> I am fine with it but urgency is questionable as far as I am
> concerned.
Yes we do. At least, we will in v5.3.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2019-06-19 12:26 ` Lee Jones
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2019-06-19 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon,
lorenzo.pieralisi, leif.lindholm
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
Tested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
@ 2019-06-19 12:26 ` Lee Jones
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2019-06-19 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: lorenzo.pieralisi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon, leif.lindholm,
linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
Tested-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2019-06-20 7:53 ` Graeme Gregory
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Graeme Gregory @ 2019-06-20 7:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon,
lorenzo.pieralisi, lee.jones, leif.lindholm
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
Makes sense, I did actually see this in the wild in SBSA machine too
once.
Reviewed-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
> }
>
> if (!(fadt->flags & ACPI_FADT_HW_REDUCED)) {
> --
> 2.20.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
@ 2019-06-20 7:53 ` Graeme Gregory
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Graeme Gregory @ 2019-06-20 7:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: lorenzo.pieralisi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon, leif.lindholm,
linux-acpi, lee.jones, linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
Makes sense, I did actually see this in the wild in SBSA machine too
once.
Reviewed-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
> }
>
> if (!(fadt->flags & ACPI_FADT_HW_REDUCED)) {
> --
> 2.20.1
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2019-06-20 9:43 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2019-06-20 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon,
lee.jones, leif.lindholm
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
AFAICS this should be harmless, so:
Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
> }
>
> if (!(fadt->flags & ACPI_FADT_HW_REDUCED)) {
> --
> 2.20.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
@ 2019-06-20 9:43 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2019-06-20 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: catalin.marinas, will.deacon, leif.lindholm, linux-acpi,
lee.jones, linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
AFAICS this should be harmless, so:
Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
> }
>
> if (!(fadt->flags & ACPI_FADT_HW_REDUCED)) {
> --
> 2.20.1
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2019-06-24 6:39 ` Hanjun Guo
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2019-06-24 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel
Cc: linux-acpi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon, lorenzo.pieralisi,
lee.jones, leif.lindholm
On 2019/6/19 20:18, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
Obviously it's a firmware bug, but should be harmless,
Acked-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
@ 2019-06-24 6:39 ` Hanjun Guo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2019-06-24 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel
Cc: lorenzo.pieralisi, catalin.marinas, will.deacon, leif.lindholm,
linux-acpi, lee.jones
On 2019/6/19 20:18, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 803f0494dd3e..7722e85fb69c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -155,10 +155,14 @@ static int __init acpi_fadt_sanity_check(void)
> */
> if (table->revision < 5 ||
> (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision < 1)) {
> - pr_err("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> + pr_err(FW_BUG "Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+\n",
> table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - goto out;
> +
> + if (!fadt->arm_boot_flags) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + pr_err("FADT has ARM boot flags set, assuming 5.1\n");
Obviously it's a firmware bug, but should be harmless,
Acked-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Thanks
Hanjun
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
2019-06-19 12:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2019-06-24 14:55 ` Catalin Marinas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-06-24 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: linux-arm-kernel, linux-acpi, will.deacon, lorenzo.pieralisi,
lee.jones, leif.lindholm
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Queued for 5.3. Thanks.
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi/arm64: ignore 5.1 FADTs that are reported as 5.0
@ 2019-06-24 14:55 ` Catalin Marinas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-06-24 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: lorenzo.pieralisi, will.deacon, leif.lindholm, linux-acpi,
lee.jones, linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Some Qualcomm Snapdragon based laptops built to run Microsoft Windows
> are clearly ACPI 5.1 based, given that that is the first ACPI revision
> that supports ARM, and introduced the FADT 'arm_boot_flags' field,
> which has a non-zero field on those systems.
>
> So in these cases, infer from the ARM boot flags that the FADT must be
> 5.1 or later, and treat it as 5.1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Queued for 5.3. Thanks.
--
Catalin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread