From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Saverio Miroddi <saverio.pub2@gmail.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] ACPI: bus: Avoid confusing complaints regarding missing _OSC features
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:16:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6315683.lOV4Wx5bFT@rafael.j.wysocki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260721192914.1166891-1-saverio.pub2@gmail.com>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
The platform firmware on some platforms sets OSC_CAPABILITIES_MASK_ERROR
in _OSC error bits even though it actually acknowledges all of the
requested features which after commit e5322888e6bf ("ACPI: bus: Rework
the handling of \_SB._OSC platform features") causes the kernel to
complain unnecessarily.
Avoid the confusing complaints by explicitly checking for that case
in acpi_osc_handshake().
Fixes: e5322888e6bf ("ACPI: bus: Rework the handling of \_SB._OSC platform features")
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Tested-by: Saverio Miroddi <saverio.pub2@gmail.com>
---
v1 -> v2:
* Apply OSC_ERROR_MASK to retbuf[OSC_QUERY_DWORD] before comparing it
with OSC_CAPABILITIES_MASK_ERROR (Sashiko)
---
drivers/acpi/bus.c | 14 +++++++++++---
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
@@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ static int acpi_osc_handshake(acpi_handl
.length = bufsize * sizeof(u32),
};
struct acpi_buffer output;
- u32 *retbuf, test;
+ u32 *retbuf, test, errors;
guid_t guid;
int ret, i;
@@ -395,10 +395,18 @@ static int acpi_osc_handshake(acpi_handl
* Clear the feature bits in capbuf[] that have not been acknowledged.
* After that, capbuf[] contains the resultant feature mask.
*/
- for (i = OSC_QUERY_DWORD + 1; i < bufsize; i++)
+ for (i = OSC_QUERY_DWORD + 1, test = 0; i < bufsize; i++) {
+ test |= capbuf[i] & ~retbuf[i];
capbuf[i] &= retbuf[i];
+ }
- if (retbuf[OSC_QUERY_DWORD] & OSC_ERROR_MASK) {
+ errors = retbuf[OSC_QUERY_DWORD] & OSC_ERROR_MASK;
+ /*
+ * Some platforms set OSC_CAPABILITIES_MASK_ERROR even though they
+ * acknowledge all of the requested feature, so avoid complaining in
+ * those cases unless any other error bits are also set.
+ */
+ if (errors && (test || errors != OSC_CAPABILITIES_MASK_ERROR)) {
/*
* Complain about the unexpected errors and print diagnostic
* information related to them.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-23 11:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-21 19:29 [PATCH] ACPI: bus: Avoid misleading _OSC missing-feature errors Saverio Miroddi
2026-07-21 23:14 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-07-22 0:06 ` Saverio Miroddi
2026-07-22 13:03 ` [PATCH v1] ACPI: bus: Avoid confusing complaints regarding missing _OSC features Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-22 15:34 ` Saverio Miroddi
2026-07-23 11:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
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=6315683.lOV4Wx5bFT@rafael.j.wysocki \
--to=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=saverio.pub2@gmail.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