From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.1 1/8] ACPI: bus: Fix handling of _OSC errors in acpi_run_osc()
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 11:12:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251223111207.0000595d@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3042649.e9J7NaK4W3@rafael.j.wysocki>
On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 20:05:44 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> The handling of _OSC errors in acpi_run_osc() is inconsistent and
> arguably not compliant with the _OSC definition (cf. Section 6.2.12 of
> ACPI 6.6 [1]).
>
> Namely, if OSC_QUERY_ENABLE is not set in the capabilities buffer and
> any of the error bits are set in the _OSC return buffer, acpi_run_osc()
> returns an error code and the _OSC return buffer is discarded. However,
> in that case, depending on what error bits are set, the return buffer
> may contain acknowledged bits for features that need to be controlled by
> the kernel going forward.
>
> If the OSC_INVALID_UUID_ERROR bit is set, the request could not be
> processed at all and so in that particular case discarding the _OSC
> return buffer and returning an error is the right thing to do regardless
> of whether or not OSC_QUERY_ENABLE is set in the capabilities buffer.
>
> If OSC_QUERY_ENABLE is set in the capabilities buffer and the
> OSC_REQUEST_ERROR or OSC_INVALID_REVISION_ERROR bits are set in the
> return buffer, acpi_run_osc() may return an error and discard the _OSC
> return buffer because in that case the platform configuration does not
> change. However, if any of them is set in the return buffer when
> OSC_QUERY_ENABLE is not set in the capabilities buffer, the feature
> mask in the _OSC return buffer still representes a set of acknowleded
typo: represents
> features as per the _OSC definition:
>
> The platform acknowledges the Capabilities Buffer by returning a
> buffer of DWORDs of the same length. Set bits indicate acknowledgment
> that OSPM may take control of the capability and cleared bits indicate
> that the platform either does not support the capability or that OSPM
> may not assume control.
>
> which is not conditional on the error bits being clear, so in that case,
> discarding the _OSC return buffer is questionable. There is also no
> reason to return an error and discard the _OSC return buffer if the
> OSC_CAPABILITIES_MASK_ERROR bit is set in it, but printing diagnostic
> messages is appropriate when that happens with OSC_QUERY_ENABLE clear
> in the capabilities buffer.
>
> Adress this issue by making acpi_run_osc() follow the rules outlined
> above.
>
> Moreover, make acpi_run_osc() only take the defined _OSC error bits into
> account when checking _OSC errors.
>
> Link: https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.6/06_Device_Configuration.html#osc-operating-system-capabilities [1]
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-23 11:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-22 18:58 [PATCH v2.1 0/8] ACPI: bus: Rework of the \_SB._OSC handling Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-12-22 19:05 ` [PATCH v2.1 1/8] ACPI: bus: Fix handling of _OSC errors in acpi_run_osc() Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-12-23 11:12 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2025-12-23 16:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-12-22 19:11 ` [PATCH v2.1 2/8] ACPI: bus: Rework printing debug messages on _OSC errors Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-12-23 11:13 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-12-22 19:14 ` [PATCH v2.1 3/8] ACPI: bus: Split _OSC evaluation out of acpi_run_osc() Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-12-23 11:18 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-12-22 19:17 ` [PATCH v2.1 4/8] ACPI: bus: Split _OSC error processing " Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-12-22 19:18 ` [PATCH v2.1 5/8] ACPI: bus: Rename label and use ACPI_FREE() in acpi_run_osc() Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-12-22 19:21 ` [PATCH v2.1 6/8] ACPI: bus: Rework the handling of \_SB._OSC platform features Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-12-23 11:25 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-12-22 19:23 ` [PATCH v2.1 7/8] ACPI: bus: Adjust feature mask creation for \_SB._OSC Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-12-23 11:26 ` Jonathan Cameron
2025-12-22 19:26 ` [PATCH v2.1 8/8] ACPI: bus: Rework the handling of \_SB._OSC USB4 features Rafael J. Wysocki
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=20251223111207.0000595d@huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=hansg@kernel.org \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox