Re: [RFC PATCH] ACPI / processors: allow a processor device _UID to be a string

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:03:15AM -0600, Al Stone wrote:
> On 6/11/19 6:53 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 02:07:34PM -0600, Al Stone wrote:
> >> In the ACPI specification, section 6.1.12, a _UID may be either an
> >> integer or a string object.  Up until now, when defining processor
> >> Device()s in ACPI (_HID ACPI0007), only integers were allowed even
> >> though this ignored the specification.  As a practical matter, it
> >> was not an issue.
> >>
> >> Recently, some DSDTs have shown up that look like this:
> >>
> >>   Device (XX00)
> >>   {
> >> 	Name (_HID, "ACPI0007" /* Processor Device */)
> >>         Name (_UID, "XYZZY-XX00")
> >>         .....
> >>   }
> >>
> >> which is perfectly legal.  However, the kernel will report instead:
> >>
> >
> > I am not sure how this can be perfectly legal from specification
> > perspective. It's legal with respect to AML namespace but then the
> > other condition of this matching with entries in static tables like
> > MADT is not possible where there are declared to be simple 4 byte
> > integer/word. Same is true for even ACPI0010, the processor container
> > objects which need to match entries in PPTT,
> >
> > ACPI Processor UID(in MADT): The OS associates this GICC(applies even
> > for APIC and family) Structure with a processor device object in
> > the namespace when the _UID child object of the processor device
> > evaluates to a numeric value that matches the numeric value in this
> > field.
> >
> > So for me that indicates it can't be string unless you have some ways to
> > match those _UID entries to ACPI Processor ID in MADT and PPTT.
> >
> > Let me know if I am missing to consider something here.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Sudeep
> >
>
> Harumph.  I think what we have here is a big mess in the spec, but
> that is exactly why this is an RFC.
>
> The MADT can have any of ~16 different subtables, as you note.  Of
> those, only these require a numeric _UID:
>
>    -- Type 0x0: Processor Local APIC
>    -- Type 0x4: Local APIC NMI [0]
>    -- Type 0x7: Processor Local SAPIC [1]
>    -- Type 0x9: Processor Local x2APIC
>    -- Type 0xa: Local x2APIC NMI [0]
>    -- Type 0xb: GICC
>
> Note [0]: a value of !0x0 is also allowed, indicating all processors
>      [1]: this has two fields that could be interpreted as an ID when
>           used together
>
> It does not appear that you could build a usable system without any
> of these subtables -- but perhaps someone knows of incantations that
> could -- which is why I thought a string _UID might be viable.
>

I hope no one is shipping such device yet or am I wrong ?
We can ask them to fix as Linux simply can't boot on such system or
even if it boots, it may have issues with acpi_processor drivers.

> If we consider the PPTT too, then yeah, _UID must be an integer for
> some devices.
>
> Thanks for the feedback; it forced me to double-check my thinking about
> the MADT.  The root cause of the issue is not the kernel in this case,
> but a lack of clarity in the spec -- or at least implied requirements
> that probably need to be explicit.  I'll send in a spec change.
>

Completely agreed. Even little more clarification on this is helpful.
Thanks for volunteering :) to take up spec change, much appreciated.

--
Regards,
Sudeep