RE: lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000

RE: lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000

[Li, Shaohua]

I basically agree ACPI should access the region exclusively. The patch
in Bug 3191 allows both SMBus driver and ACPI thermal zone driver access
it. But there is a risk, we have no way to synchronize the access. Only
one driver can access it one time. But somebody will argue SMBus driver
has more benefit.

Thanks,
Shaohua

>-----Original Message-----
>From: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org [mailto:acpi-devel-
>admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
>Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:24 AM
>To: Moore, Robert
>Cc: acpi-devel
>Subject: RE: [ACPI] lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000
>
>
>    I've nearly gotten to the bottom of this problem.  It's not an
>interpreter bug, nor is it a BIOS bug.  The address we were trying to
>read in AML is a SMBus controller address.  This address sits on the
>hidden SMBus function in the Intel chipset.  Unfortunately, the PCI
>quirks routine un-hides the devices.  So far this is all the same as
the
>way it behaved prior to the 20040715 code drop.
>
>   The new piece is the motherboard driver.  Now this driver comes in
an
>claims the I/O port region that the SMBus controller is using.  We've
>un-hidden the PCI function, so PCI wants that resource range.  It can't
>get it so it moves the SMBus BAR to a different address.  The AML is
now
>hosed cause it's hard-coded to use the address it programmed in (why
>shouldn't it, the device is hidden).  Why are we un-hiding the SMBus
>function?  The AML sets up an OpRegion for the address space it uses,
so
>should have exclusive access to that range.  Suggestions?  Thanks,
>
>	Alex
>
>On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 09:42 -0700, Moore, Robert wrote:
>>
>> Alex,
>>
>> This is an interesting problem, and I do not think it is a problem
with
>> the AML interpreter.  The machine's AML code seems to be either
ignoring
>> an error case or accidentally generating an improper value used
during a
>> package comparison (Match).
>>
>> 1) For TZ1._TMP, C201 is called with an arg of 0.  For TZ2._TMP, C201
is
>> called with an arg of 1.  For TZ3._TMP, C201 is called with an arg of
2.
>>
>> 2) When C201 is called with an arg < 2, a different code path is
>> followed.  This code path invokes another method, C08F, which is
>> returning a value of 0x1C00 (in what appears to be the "normal" code
>> path)
>>
>> 3) This return value (in Local1) in turn gets compared to elements of
>> the package C1EE as follows:
>>
>> Store (Match (DerefOf (Index (DerefOf (Index (C1EE, C200 (Arg0))),
>> 0x01)), MGT, Local1, MTR, 0x00, 0x00), Local0)
>>
>> 4) None of the elements of C1EE are greater than 0x1C00, so the
Match()
>> operator returns 0xFFFFFFFF (indicating failure).  This is stored in
>> Local0.
>>
>> 5) Local0 is then passed to C202 as follows:
>>
>> C202 (Local0, Arg0)
>>
>> 6) In C202, the zeroth argument is used as an index into package
C1EE.
>>
>> 7) Since this argument is 0xFFFFFFFF, the Index() operation fails.
>>
>> It's hard to guess what the original code is attempting, but I do not
>> see any errors in the interpretation of the code.
>>
>> Did this actually work at some time in the past?
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org [mailto:acpi-devel-
>> > admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:51 AM
>> > To: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
>> > Subject: [ACPI] lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000
>> >
>> >
>> >    FYI, running 2.6.8-rc4-mm1 on a HP nc6000 laptop, I now get
these:
>> >
>> > exoparg2-0462 [70] ex_opcode_2A_1T_1R    : Index value (FFFFFFFF)
>> beyond
>> > package end (6)
>> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C202]
(Node
>> > c21adc28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C201]
(Node
>> > c21add28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.TZ1_._TMP]
>> (Node
>> > c21b3728), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>> > exoparg2-0462 [71] ex_opcode_2A_1T_1R    : Index value (FFFFFFFF)
>> beyond
>> > package end (2)
>> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C202]
(Node
>> > c21adc28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C201]
(Node
>> > c21add28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.TZ2_._TMP]
>> (Node
>> > c21b3a28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>> >
>> > Unfortunately TZ1 is the CPU thermal zone, so I have to manually
turn
>> on
>> > the fans to feel comfortable running with these errors (acpi -V
>> reports
>> > only 1 of the expected 3 thermal zones).  Looking at the code, I
>> assume
>> > this is an AML bug as the index value appears to be -1.  Should
ACPI
>> be
>> > a bit more graceful w/ this?  This works just fine w/ the ACPI in
>> 2.6.8-
>> > rc4.  Thanks,
>> >
>> > 	Alex
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------
>> > SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank
Media
>> > 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
>> > Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
>> > http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Acpi-devel mailing list
>> > Acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-devel
>>
>--
>Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
>100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
>Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
>http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285
>_______________________________________________
>Acpi-devel mailing list
>Acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-devel


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285

RE: lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000

[Alex Williamson]

  In case you didn't see, Linus posted a trivial patch that avoids the
problem for me:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=109339448319880&w=2

I still don't think we have any right to expose the hidden SMBus, it's
just asking for trouble, but...

	Alex

On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 09:27 +0800, Li, Shaohua wrote:
> I basically agree ACPI should access the region exclusively. The patch
> in Bug 3191 allows both SMBus driver and ACPI thermal zone driver access
> it. But there is a risk, we have no way to synchronize the access. Only
> one driver can access it one time. But somebody will argue SMBus driver
> has more benefit.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shaohua
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org [mailto:acpi-devel-
> >admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:24 AM
> >To: Moore, Robert
> >Cc: acpi-devel
> >Subject: RE: [ACPI] lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000
> >
> >
> >    I've nearly gotten to the bottom of this problem.  It's not an
> >interpreter bug, nor is it a BIOS bug.  The address we were trying to
> >read in AML is a SMBus controller address.  This address sits on the
> >hidden SMBus function in the Intel chipset.  Unfortunately, the PCI
> >quirks routine un-hides the devices.  So far this is all the same as
> the
> >way it behaved prior to the 20040715 code drop.
> >
> >   The new piece is the motherboard driver.  Now this driver comes in
> an
> >claims the I/O port region that the SMBus controller is using.  We've
> >un-hidden the PCI function, so PCI wants that resource range.  It can't
> >get it so it moves the SMBus BAR to a different address.  The AML is
> now
> >hosed cause it's hard-coded to use the address it programmed in (why
> >shouldn't it, the device is hidden).  Why are we un-hiding the SMBus
> >function?  The AML sets up an OpRegion for the address space it uses,
> so
> >should have exclusive access to that range.  Suggestions?  Thanks,
> >
> >	Alex
> >




-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285

RE: lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000

[Li, Shaohua]

Agree. Linus's patch has the same principal with the patch in Bug 3191:
allow SMBus driver access the IO region. But it still can't avoid the
risk.

Thanks,
Shaohua
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:52 AM
>To: Li, Shaohua
>Cc: eric.valette-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org; Karol Kozimor; Moore, Robert; acpi-
>devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
>Subject: RE: [ACPI] lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000
>
>
>  In case you didn't see, Linus posted a trivial patch that avoids the
>problem for me:
>
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=109339448319880&w=2
>
>I still don't think we have any right to expose the hidden SMBus, it's
>just asking for trouble, but...
>
>	Alex
>
>On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 09:27 +0800, Li, Shaohua wrote:
>> I basically agree ACPI should access the region exclusively. The
patch
>> in Bug 3191 allows both SMBus driver and ACPI thermal zone driver
access
>> it. But there is a risk, we have no way to synchronize the access.
Only
>> one driver can access it one time. But somebody will argue SMBus
driver
>> has more benefit.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shaohua
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org [mailto:acpi-devel-
>> >admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
>> >Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:24 AM
>> >To: Moore, Robert
>> >Cc: acpi-devel
>> >Subject: RE: [ACPI] lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000
>> >
>> >
>> >    I've nearly gotten to the bottom of this problem.  It's not an
>> >interpreter bug, nor is it a BIOS bug.  The address we were trying
to
>> >read in AML is a SMBus controller address.  This address sits on the
>> >hidden SMBus function in the Intel chipset.  Unfortunately, the PCI
>> >quirks routine un-hides the devices.  So far this is all the same as
>> the
>> >way it behaved prior to the 20040715 code drop.
>> >
>> >   The new piece is the motherboard driver.  Now this driver comes
in
>> an
>> >claims the I/O port region that the SMBus controller is using.
We've
>> >un-hidden the PCI function, so PCI wants that resource range.  It
can't
>> >get it so it moves the SMBus BAR to a different address.  The AML is
>> now
>> >hosed cause it's hard-coded to use the address it programmed in (why
>> >shouldn't it, the device is hidden).  Why are we un-hiding the SMBus
>> >function?  The AML sets up an OpRegion for the address space it
uses,
>> so
>> >should have exclusive access to that range.  Suggestions?  Thanks,
>> >
>> >	Alex
>> >
>



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285

RE: lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000

[Moore, Robert]

>    The new piece is the motherboard driver.  Now this driver comes in
an
> claims the I/O port region that the SMBus controller is using. 


Sounds like the driver is causing the problem by claiming this resource.

However, I'm not an expert on enumeration/resource issues.

Bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 2:24 PM
> To: Moore, Robert
> Cc: acpi-devel
> Subject: RE: [ACPI] lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000
> 
> 
>     I've nearly gotten to the bottom of this problem.  It's not an
> interpreter bug, nor is it a BIOS bug.  The address we were trying to
> read in AML is a SMBus controller address.  This address sits on the
> hidden SMBus function in the Intel chipset.  Unfortunately, the PCI
> quirks routine un-hides the devices.  So far this is all the same as
the
> way it behaved prior to the 20040715 code drop.
> 
>    The new piece is the motherboard driver.  Now this driver comes in
an
> claims the I/O port region that the SMBus controller is using.  We've
> un-hidden the PCI function, so PCI wants that resource range.  It
can't
> get it so it moves the SMBus BAR to a different address.  The AML is
now
> hosed cause it's hard-coded to use the address it programmed in (why
> shouldn't it, the device is hidden).  Why are we un-hiding the SMBus
> function?  The AML sets up an OpRegion for the address space it uses,
so
> should have exclusive access to that range.  Suggestions?  Thanks,
> 
> 	Alex
> 
> On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 09:42 -0700, Moore, Robert wrote:
> >
> > Alex,
> >
> > This is an interesting problem, and I do not think it is a problem
with
> > the AML interpreter.  The machine's AML code seems to be either
ignoring
> > an error case or accidentally generating an improper value used
during a
> > package comparison (Match).
> >
> > 1) For TZ1._TMP, C201 is called with an arg of 0.  For TZ2._TMP,
C201 is
> > called with an arg of 1.  For TZ3._TMP, C201 is called with an arg
of 2.
> >
> > 2) When C201 is called with an arg < 2, a different code path is
> > followed.  This code path invokes another method, C08F, which is
> > returning a value of 0x1C00 (in what appears to be the "normal" code
> > path)
> >
> > 3) This return value (in Local1) in turn gets compared to elements
of
> > the package C1EE as follows:
> >
> > Store (Match (DerefOf (Index (DerefOf (Index (C1EE, C200 (Arg0))),
> > 0x01)), MGT, Local1, MTR, 0x00, 0x00), Local0)
> >
> > 4) None of the elements of C1EE are greater than 0x1C00, so the
Match()
> > operator returns 0xFFFFFFFF (indicating failure).  This is stored in
> > Local0.
> >
> > 5) Local0 is then passed to C202 as follows:
> >
> > C202 (Local0, Arg0)
> >
> > 6) In C202, the zeroth argument is used as an index into package
C1EE.
> >
> > 7) Since this argument is 0xFFFFFFFF, the Index() operation fails.
> >
> > It's hard to guess what the original code is attempting, but I do
not
> > see any errors in the interpretation of the code.
> >
> > Did this actually work at some time in the past?
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org [mailto:acpi-devel-
> > > admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:51 AM
> > > To: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> > > Subject: [ACPI] lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000
> > >
> > >
> > >    FYI, running 2.6.8-rc4-mm1 on a HP nc6000 laptop, I now get
these:
> > >
> > > exoparg2-0462 [70] ex_opcode_2A_1T_1R    : Index value (FFFFFFFF)
> > beyond
> > > package end (6)
> > >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C202]
(Node
> > > c21adc28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> > >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C201]
(Node
> > > c21add28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> > >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed
[\_TZ_.TZ1_._TMP]
> > (Node
> > > c21b3728), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> > > exoparg2-0462 [71] ex_opcode_2A_1T_1R    : Index value (FFFFFFFF)
> > beyond
> > > package end (2)
> > >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C202]
(Node
> > > c21adc28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> > >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C201]
(Node
> > > c21add28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> > >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed
[\_TZ_.TZ2_._TMP]
> > (Node
> > > c21b3a28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> > >
> > > Unfortunately TZ1 is the CPU thermal zone, so I have to manually
turn
> > on
> > > the fans to feel comfortable running with these errors (acpi -V
> > reports
> > > only 1 of the expected 3 thermal zones).  Looking at the code, I
> > assume
> > > this is an AML bug as the index value appears to be -1.  Should
ACPI
> > be
> > > a bit more graceful w/ this?  This works just fine w/ the ACPI in
> > 2.6.8-
> > > rc4.  Thanks,
> > >
> > > 	Alex
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank
Media
> > > 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
> > > Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
> > > http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Acpi-devel mailing list
> > > Acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-devel
> >
> --
> Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285

RE: lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000

[Moore, Robert]

Alex,

This is an interesting problem, and I do not think it is a problem with
the AML interpreter.  The machine's AML code seems to be either ignoring
an error case or accidentally generating an improper value used during a
package comparison (Match).

1) For TZ1._TMP, C201 is called with an arg of 0.  For TZ2._TMP, C201 is
called with an arg of 1.  For TZ3._TMP, C201 is called with an arg of 2.

2) When C201 is called with an arg < 2, a different code path is
followed.  This code path invokes another method, C08F, which is
returning a value of 0x1C00 (in what appears to be the "normal" code
path)

3) This return value (in Local1) in turn gets compared to elements of
the package C1EE as follows:

Store (Match (DerefOf (Index (DerefOf (Index (C1EE, C200 (Arg0))),
0x01)), MGT, Local1, MTR, 0x00, 0x00), Local0)

4) None of the elements of C1EE are greater than 0x1C00, so the Match()
operator returns 0xFFFFFFFF (indicating failure).  This is stored in
Local0.

5) Local0 is then passed to C202 as follows:

C202 (Local0, Arg0)

6) In C202, the zeroth argument is used as an index into package C1EE.

7) Since this argument is 0xFFFFFFFF, the Index() operation fails.

It's hard to guess what the original code is attempting, but I do not
see any errors in the interpretation of the code.

Did this actually work at some time in the past?

Bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org [mailto:acpi-devel-
> admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:51 AM
> To: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> Subject: [ACPI] lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000
> 
> 
>    FYI, running 2.6.8-rc4-mm1 on a HP nc6000 laptop, I now get these:
> 
> exoparg2-0462 [70] ex_opcode_2A_1T_1R    : Index value (FFFFFFFF)
beyond
> package end (6)
>  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C202] (Node
> c21adc28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C201] (Node
> c21add28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.TZ1_._TMP]
(Node
> c21b3728), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> exoparg2-0462 [71] ex_opcode_2A_1T_1R    : Index value (FFFFFFFF)
beyond
> package end (2)
>  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C202] (Node
> c21adc28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C201] (Node
> c21add28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.TZ2_._TMP]
(Node
> c21b3a28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> 
> Unfortunately TZ1 is the CPU thermal zone, so I have to manually turn
on
> the fans to feel comfortable running with these errors (acpi -V
reports
> only 1 of the expected 3 thermal zones).  Looking at the code, I
assume
> this is an AML bug as the index value appears to be -1.  Should ACPI
be
> a bit more graceful w/ this?  This works just fine w/ the ACPI in
2.6.8-
> rc4.  Thanks,
> 
> 	Alex
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
> 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
> Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
> http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285
> _______________________________________________
> Acpi-devel mailing list
> Acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-devel


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285

RE: lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000

[Alex Williamson]

On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 09:42 -0700, Moore, Robert wrote:
> 
> Alex,
> 
> This is an interesting problem, and I do not think it is a problem with
> the AML interpreter.  The machine's AML code seems to be either ignoring
> an error case or accidentally generating an improper value used during a
> package comparison (Match).
> 
> 1) For TZ1._TMP, C201 is called with an arg of 0.  For TZ2._TMP, C201 is
> called with an arg of 1.  For TZ3._TMP, C201 is called with an arg of 2.
> 
> 2) When C201 is called with an arg < 2, a different code path is
> followed.  This code path invokes another method, C08F, which is
> returning a value of 0x1C00 (in what appears to be the "normal" code
> path)
> 
> 3) This return value (in Local1) in turn gets compared to elements of
> the package C1EE as follows:
> 
> Store (Match (DerefOf (Index (DerefOf (Index (C1EE, C200 (Arg0))),
> 0x01)), MGT, Local1, MTR, 0x00, 0x00), Local0)
> 
> 4) None of the elements of C1EE are greater than 0x1C00, so the Match()
> operator returns 0xFFFFFFFF (indicating failure).  This is stored in
> Local0.
> 
> 5) Local0 is then passed to C202 as follows:
> 
> C202 (Local0, Arg0)
> 
> 6) In C202, the zeroth argument is used as an index into package C1EE.
> 
> 7) Since this argument is 0xFFFFFFFF, the Index() operation fails.
> 
> It's hard to guess what the original code is attempting, but I do not
> see any errors in the interpretation of the code.
> 
> Did this actually work at some time in the past?
> 

   Strange.  Yes, I'm currently running 2.6.8-rc4 on it w/ ACPI 20040326
and all 3 thermal zone seem to work just fine:

$ acpi -Vf
     Battery 1: charged, 100%
     Battery 2: discharging, 15%, 00:31:33 remaining
     Thermal 1: ok, 111.2 degrees F
     Thermal 2: ok, 134.6 degrees F
     Thermal 3: ok, 91.4 degrees F
  AC Adapter 1: off-line

$ cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/TZ1/polling_frequency 
<polling disabled>
$ cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/TZ1/cooling_mode 
cooling mode:            passive
$ cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/TZ1/trip_points 
critical (S5):           103 C
passive:                 100 C: tc1=1 tc2=2 tsp=100 devices=0xf7ffe500 
active[0]:               80 C: devices=0xf7f38920 
active[1]:               65 C: devices=0xf7f39880 
active[2]:               55 C: devices=0xf7f39800 
active[3]:               45 C: devices=0xf7f39780 
$ cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/TZ1/temperature 
temperature:             44 C
$ cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/TZ1/state 
state:                   ok

I don't see any ACPI error messages with the older version of the CA.
Thanks,

	Alex

-- 
Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285

RE: lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000

[Alex Williamson]

    I've nearly gotten to the bottom of this problem.  It's not an
interpreter bug, nor is it a BIOS bug.  The address we were trying to
read in AML is a SMBus controller address.  This address sits on the
hidden SMBus function in the Intel chipset.  Unfortunately, the PCI
quirks routine un-hides the devices.  So far this is all the same as the
way it behaved prior to the 20040715 code drop.

   The new piece is the motherboard driver.  Now this driver comes in an
claims the I/O port region that the SMBus controller is using.  We've
un-hidden the PCI function, so PCI wants that resource range.  It can't
get it so it moves the SMBus BAR to a different address.  The AML is now
hosed cause it's hard-coded to use the address it programmed in (why
shouldn't it, the device is hidden).  Why are we un-hiding the SMBus
function?  The AML sets up an OpRegion for the address space it uses, so
should have exclusive access to that range.  Suggestions?  Thanks,

	Alex

On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 09:42 -0700, Moore, Robert wrote:
> 
> Alex,
> 
> This is an interesting problem, and I do not think it is a problem with
> the AML interpreter.  The machine's AML code seems to be either ignoring
> an error case or accidentally generating an improper value used during a
> package comparison (Match).
> 
> 1) For TZ1._TMP, C201 is called with an arg of 0.  For TZ2._TMP, C201 is
> called with an arg of 1.  For TZ3._TMP, C201 is called with an arg of 2.
> 
> 2) When C201 is called with an arg < 2, a different code path is
> followed.  This code path invokes another method, C08F, which is
> returning a value of 0x1C00 (in what appears to be the "normal" code
> path)
> 
> 3) This return value (in Local1) in turn gets compared to elements of
> the package C1EE as follows:
> 
> Store (Match (DerefOf (Index (DerefOf (Index (C1EE, C200 (Arg0))),
> 0x01)), MGT, Local1, MTR, 0x00, 0x00), Local0)
> 
> 4) None of the elements of C1EE are greater than 0x1C00, so the Match()
> operator returns 0xFFFFFFFF (indicating failure).  This is stored in
> Local0.
> 
> 5) Local0 is then passed to C202 as follows:
> 
> C202 (Local0, Arg0)
> 
> 6) In C202, the zeroth argument is used as an index into package C1EE.
> 
> 7) Since this argument is 0xFFFFFFFF, the Index() operation fails.
> 
> It's hard to guess what the original code is attempting, but I do not
> see any errors in the interpretation of the code.
> 
> Did this actually work at some time in the past?
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org [mailto:acpi-devel-
> > admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:51 AM
> > To: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> > Subject: [ACPI] lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000
> > 
> > 
> >    FYI, running 2.6.8-rc4-mm1 on a HP nc6000 laptop, I now get these:
> > 
> > exoparg2-0462 [70] ex_opcode_2A_1T_1R    : Index value (FFFFFFFF)
> beyond
> > package end (6)
> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C202] (Node
> > c21adc28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C201] (Node
> > c21add28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.TZ1_._TMP]
> (Node
> > c21b3728), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> > exoparg2-0462 [71] ex_opcode_2A_1T_1R    : Index value (FFFFFFFF)
> beyond
> > package end (2)
> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C202] (Node
> > c21adc28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C201] (Node
> > c21add28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> >  psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.TZ2_._TMP]
> (Node
> > c21b3a28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
> > 
> > Unfortunately TZ1 is the CPU thermal zone, so I have to manually turn
> on
> > the fans to feel comfortable running with these errors (acpi -V
> reports
> > only 1 of the expected 3 thermal zones).  Looking at the code, I
> assume
> > this is an AML bug as the index value appears to be -1.  Should ACPI
> be
> > a bit more graceful w/ this?  This works just fine w/ the ACPI in
> 2.6.8-
> > rc4.  Thanks,
> > 
> > 	Alex
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
> > 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
> > Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
> > http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285
> > _______________________________________________
> > Acpi-devel mailing list
> > Acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-devel
> 
-- 
Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285

Re: lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000

[Karol Kozimor]

Thus wrote Alex Williamson:
> 
>     I've nearly gotten to the bottom of this problem.  It's not an
> interpreter bug, nor is it a BIOS bug.  The address we were trying to
> read in AML is a SMBus controller address.  This address sits on the
> hidden SMBus function in the Intel chipset.  Unfortunately, the PCI
> quirks routine un-hides the devices.  So far this is all the same as the
> way it behaved prior to the 20040715 code drop.
> 
>    The new piece is the motherboard driver.  Now this driver comes in an
> claims the I/O port region that the SMBus controller is using.  We've
> un-hidden the PCI function, so PCI wants that resource range.  It can't
> get it so it moves the SMBus BAR to a different address.  The AML is now
> hosed cause it's hard-coded to use the address it programmed in (why
> shouldn't it, the device is hidden).  Why are we un-hiding the SMBus
> function?  The AML sets up an OpRegion for the address space it uses, so
> should have exclusive access to that range.  Suggestions?  Thanks,

Ouch, see bug #3191.
Best regards,

-- 
Karol 'sziwan' Kozimor
sziwan-DETuoxkZsSqrDJvtcaxF/A@public.gmane.org


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285

lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000

[Alex Williamson]

   FYI, running 2.6.8-rc4-mm1 on a HP nc6000 laptop, I now get these:

exoparg2-0462 [70] ex_opcode_2A_1T_1R    : Index value (FFFFFFFF) beyond package end (6)
 psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C202] (Node c21adc28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
 psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C201] (Node c21add28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
 psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.TZ1_._TMP] (Node c21b3728), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
exoparg2-0462 [71] ex_opcode_2A_1T_1R    : Index value (FFFFFFFF) beyond package end (2)
 psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C202] (Node c21adc28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
 psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.C201] (Node c21add28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
 psparse-1133: *** Error: Method execution failed [\_TZ_.TZ2_._TMP] (Node c21b3a28), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT

Unfortunately TZ1 is the CPU thermal zone, so I have to manually turn on
the fans to feel comfortable running with these errors (acpi -V reports
only 1 of the expected 3 thermal zones).  Looking at the code, I assume
this is an AML bug as the index value appears to be -1.  Should ACPI be
a bit more graceful w/ this?  This works just fine w/ the ACPI in 2.6.8-
rc4.  Thanks,

	Alex



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285