Re: Missing watchdog after ACPI watchdog creation failure

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:28:26 +0100,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:26:37 +0100,
> Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:53:41PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately we couldn't get approval yet, since it's a prototype
> > > > machine.
> > > 
> > > In that case, I think the system itself and its ACPI tables should be
> > > fixed if possible. Windows relies on that table as well so unless there
> > > is something terribly wrong in how we allocate resources in Linux,
> > > Windows should fail the same way. There is good reason why the WDAT
> > > table is there in the first place so using iTCO to poke the hardware
> > > directly might cause some other problems. Windows does not have iTCO
> > > driver at all.
> > > 
> > > > Meanwhile, the reporter tested the patch below and confirmed to work.
> > > > (It might be racy for acpi_has_watchdog() call during the probe, but
> > > >  you see the idea.)
> > > 
> > > I would rather not to add any kinds of quirks for systems that are still
> > > in development phase and the BIOS can be fixed. Basic idea is that if
> > > the WDAT table is there we expect it to be correct and at least the
> > > systems I'm aware of that's the case.
> > > 
> > > Of course if it turns out to be a problem in a real production system we
> > > need to find out what the actual problem is (i.e why the resource
> > > allocation fails in the first place) and fix it there.
> > > 
> > > That said, if Rafael says we should still add the check, I'll make a
> > > patch that does it (based on yours) and send it upstream :)
> > 
> > However, we can still check if the WDAT is actually enabled and prevent
> > creation of the device in that case. It may be that the BIOS always
> > exposes the table but the device itself is disabled.
> > 
> > Can you ask the reporter to try the below patch and see if it helps?
> 
> OK, will provide a test kernel and ask for testing with it.

Sorry for reviving the old thread: I've been off for the last few
weeks.

Now we got the updated information.  The result was negative,
unfortunately the patch didn't help.  Also, I was told that the
problem is seen on the production system, so this isn't only about the
prototype one.


thanks,

Takashi