From: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
"patches@linaro.org" <patches@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:45:40 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <559B1324.8000301@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0j+iKhOX4hw2XQEdo9CjpP2sfdxGwCz_vN5OVqithEv0Q@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/06/2015 05:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org> wrote:
>> In the ACPI 5.1 version of the spec, the struct for the GICC subtable
>> (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt) of the MADT is 76 bytes long; in
>> ACPI 6.0, the struct is 80 bytes long. But, there is only one definition
>> in ACPICA for this struct -- and that is the 6.0 version. Hence, when
>> BAD_MADT_ENTRY() compares the struct size to the length in the GICC
>> subtable, it fails if 5.1 structs are in use, and there are systems in
>> the wild that have them.
>>
>> Note that this was found in linux-next and these patches apply against
>> that tree and the arm64 kernel tree; 4.1 does not appear to have this
>> problem since it still has the 5.1 struct definition.
>>
>> Though there is precedent in ia64 code for ignoring the changes in size,
>> this patch set instead verifies correctness. The first patch adds the
>> BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() macro to check the GICC subtable only, accounting
>> for the difference in specification versions that are possible. The
>> second patch replaces BAD_MADT_ENTRY usage with the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY
>> macro in arm64 code, which is currently the only architecture affected.
>> The BAD_MADT_ENTRY() will continue to work as is for all other MADT
>> subtables.
>>
>> I have tested these patches on an APM Mustang with version 1.15 firmware,
>> where the problem was found, and they fix the problem -- i.e., the system
>> will boot with either Linux 4.1 or linux-next kernels using the same ACPI
>> 5.1 compatible firmware.
>
> ACK for the series, but I guess it's better to let it go via ARM64, right?
>
> Rafael
Thanks, Rafael. Yeah, probably so. Will has ACKd the one patch
(2/2); if he and/or Catalin ACK patch 1/2, then this seems like it
would pretty cleanly fit into ARM64. The only question would be if
Will or Catalin would want an ACK from Thomas on the irq-gic.c part
in 2/2.
--
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3@redhat.com
-----------------------------------
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ahs3@redhat.com (Al Stone)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 0/2] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:45:40 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <559B1324.8000301@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0j+iKhOX4hw2XQEdo9CjpP2sfdxGwCz_vN5OVqithEv0Q@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/06/2015 05:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org> wrote:
>> In the ACPI 5.1 version of the spec, the struct for the GICC subtable
>> (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt) of the MADT is 76 bytes long; in
>> ACPI 6.0, the struct is 80 bytes long. But, there is only one definition
>> in ACPICA for this struct -- and that is the 6.0 version. Hence, when
>> BAD_MADT_ENTRY() compares the struct size to the length in the GICC
>> subtable, it fails if 5.1 structs are in use, and there are systems in
>> the wild that have them.
>>
>> Note that this was found in linux-next and these patches apply against
>> that tree and the arm64 kernel tree; 4.1 does not appear to have this
>> problem since it still has the 5.1 struct definition.
>>
>> Though there is precedent in ia64 code for ignoring the changes in size,
>> this patch set instead verifies correctness. The first patch adds the
>> BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() macro to check the GICC subtable only, accounting
>> for the difference in specification versions that are possible. The
>> second patch replaces BAD_MADT_ENTRY usage with the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY
>> macro in arm64 code, which is currently the only architecture affected.
>> The BAD_MADT_ENTRY() will continue to work as is for all other MADT
>> subtables.
>>
>> I have tested these patches on an APM Mustang with version 1.15 firmware,
>> where the problem was found, and they fix the problem -- i.e., the system
>> will boot with either Linux 4.1 or linux-next kernels using the same ACPI
>> 5.1 compatible firmware.
>
> ACK for the series, but I guess it's better to let it go via ARM64, right?
>
> Rafael
Thanks, Rafael. Yeah, probably so. Will has ACKd the one patch
(2/2); if he and/or Catalin ACK patch 1/2, then this seems like it
would pretty cleanly fit into ARM64. The only question would be if
Will or Catalin would want an ACK from Thomas on the irq-gic.c part
in 2/2.
--
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3 at redhat.com
-----------------------------------
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-06 23:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-06 23:16 [PATCH v4 0/2] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:16 ` Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:16 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] ACPI / ARM64: add BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() macro Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:16 ` Al Stone
2015-07-07 9:25 ` Will Deacon
2015-07-07 9:25 ` Will Deacon
2015-07-07 15:12 ` Al Stone
2015-07-07 15:12 ` Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:16 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] ACPI / ARM64 : use the new BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY macro Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:16 ` Al Stone
2015-07-06 23:20 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-06 23:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-06 23:45 ` Al Stone [this message]
2015-07-06 23:45 ` Al Stone
2015-07-07 6:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-07-07 6:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-07-07 13:31 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-07 13:31 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-07 15:07 ` Al Stone
2015-07-07 15:07 ` Al Stone
2015-07-07 15:07 ` Al Stone
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=559B1324.8000301@redhat.com \
--to=ahs3@redhat.com \
--cc=al.stone@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.