From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54CC24F61D; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 08:01:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709884876; cv=none; b=Ew+no0YoWok8kPHD7+LS+ppWbv3TNMQzetaiuNq63uHYiWdHI2/FTMMCW2xVCb//rGEoNQs8Ov1RwA9PEm8/lXrhu40Esbl9X6TDd/XOkHaYN6wkScBZRQO8J8DftPfrQETx373jlsRuYSzqdfneDdYwSAjdUC0DRW1skQcgyKE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709884876; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ioKP+FCr73IWPP6an5pqKpjOX6aJDfsCIfbs7bCOtM4=; h=From:Date:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=k76NZPfkfAi6sUK6e6ptyiaHqm1fkxOHYyku1HzO+/RYtzKWjPpmhaynI6paY3KD2aDAUwhswsykPHP69J7BMWKDWG/AflR79bYGiBvJ30R+odOmfQJwKBRIRhGkklvzJ5cdNu9xIYvvrugUUitVDkzD4/RxlGpp4HtQI3k3HYM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=oFxDBR3u; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="oFxDBR3u" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1709884875; x=1741420875; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=ioKP+FCr73IWPP6an5pqKpjOX6aJDfsCIfbs7bCOtM4=; b=oFxDBR3uFBt1q5ukkI/g+DqSRm3tD9qyF56RJlHCMb9ot9/zN4uuHMqc +cwlEb/Q6WDE5x+Q4dBHb+CRk3D8TEb+tQWEmmbtsxlF1piphOzAjOd2Q tcG1k87Wy1WJaJrnkhE481hBlSvcUUfWzvJq9nJagReHfA9fFAsHYpxUu 9nkeWASFsnIyFwEJEzjhgAQEuQTGuFX2ymRg5vSKIRacSC0lLZocWpNY6 +V1fS7HNZvDdNpK7pE7yYFeLPUVrw1DYaC1wsatUXZF1jEutY5XWXs+At Jrg7+xJ0Qv0SXSrcoNcpSRtNbb2GKEd+F+8VHYBLoJVAOajH9haDZaCK/ g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11006"; a="22119413" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,108,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="22119413" Received: from fmviesa009.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.149]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Mar 2024 00:01:14 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,108,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="10267075" Received: from ijarvine-desk1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.186]) by fmviesa009-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Mar 2024 00:01:11 -0800 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:01:05 +0200 (EET) To: Armin Wolf cc: Hans de Goede , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] platform/x86: wmi: Support reading/writing 16 bit EC values In-Reply-To: <20240307195753.2961-1-W_Armin@gmx.de> Message-ID: <21fd57a2-d8c3-779c-7090-b7cdfc8198be@linux.intel.com> References: <20240307195753.2961-1-W_Armin@gmx.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 7 Mar 2024, Armin Wolf wrote: > The ACPI EC address space handler currently only supports > reading/writing 8 bit values. Some firmware implementations however > want to access for example 16 bit values, which is prefectly legal > according to the ACPI spec. > > Add support for reading/writing such values. > > Tested on a Dell Inspiron 3505 and a Asus Prime B650-Plus. > > Signed-off-by: Armin Wolf > @@ -1162,27 +1188,28 @@ acpi_wmi_ec_space_handler(u32 function, acpi_physical_address address, > u32 bits, u64 *value, > void *handler_context, void *region_context) > { > - int result = 0; > - u8 temp = 0; > + int bytes = bits / BITS_PER_BYTE; > + int ret; > + > + if (!value) > + return AE_NULL_ENTRY; > > - if ((address > 0xFF) || !value) > + if (bytes > sizeof(*value)) > return AE_BAD_PARAMETER; > > - if (function != ACPI_READ && function != ACPI_WRITE) > + if (address > U8_MAX || address + bytes > U8_MAX) This doesn't look correct. With address = 0xff and bits = 8 this will return AE_BAD_PARAMETER, is that intensional? -- i.