From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Myron Stowe Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI, APEI: Fixup incorrect 64-bit access width firmware bug Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:50:46 -0700 Message-ID: <1358477447.2396.4.camel@zim.stowe> References: <1358327009-14625-1-git-send-email-jia.zhang@windriver.com> <2313122.XO7091fHrU@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4809 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752744Ab3ARCu7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:50:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <2313122.XO7091fHrU@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Lans Zhang , len.brown@intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Huang Ying , Gary Hade On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 23:54 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 05:03:29 PM Lans Zhang wrote: > > The bit width check was introduced by 15afae60 (ACPI, APEI: Fix > > incorrect APEI register bit width check and usage), and a fixup > > for incorrect 32-bit width memory address was given by f712c71 > > (ACPI, APEI: Fixup common access width firmware bug). Now there > > is a similar symptom: > > > > [Firmware Bug]: APEI: Invalid bit width + offset in GAR [0x12345000/64/0/3/0] > > > > Another bogus BIOS reports an incorrect 64-bit width in trigger table. > > Thus, apply to a similar workaround for 64-bit width memory address. > > This makes sense to me, but I'd like more people to have a look at it (Myron, > Ying, Gary CCed). > > Thanks, > Rafael > > > > Signed-off-by: Lans Zhang > > --- > > drivers/acpi/apei/apei-base.c | 3 +++ > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/apei-base.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/apei-base.c > > index 00a7836..46f80e2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/apei-base.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/apei-base.c > > @@ -590,6 +590,9 @@ static int apei_check_gar(struct acpi_generic_address *reg, u64 *paddr, > > if (bit_width == 32 && bit_offset == 0 && (*paddr & 0x03) == 0 && > > *access_bit_width < 32) > > *access_bit_width = 32; > > + else if (bit_width == 64 && bit_offset == 0 && (*paddr & 0x07) == 0 && > > + *access_bit_width < 64) > > + *access_bit_width = 64; > > > > if ((bit_width + bit_offset) > *access_bit_width) { > > pr_warning(FW_BUG APEI_PFX > > I don't see anything concerning (the spec was definitely anything less than clear - at least to me - so I'm not surprised we are seeing so many interpretations and/or bugs). Acked-by: Myron Stowe