From: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Christian Hofstaedtler <ch@zeha.at>,
x86@kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
bruce.w.allan@intel.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add DMI quirk for Intel DP55KG mainboard
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:22:30 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001061504110.4086@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100106193608.GA21447@srcf.ucam.org>
> > using _OSI is not "a similar method to Windows".
> > The BIOS does not need to invoke _OSI to determine if
> > it should expose a properly functioning ACPI reset or not.
> > Windows XP simply demanded it, and the box failed WHQL
> > if it did not work.
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/E/7/7E7662CF-CBEA-470B-A97E-CE7CE0D98DC2/WinACPI_OSI.docx
> was what I was referring to:
>
> "By using the _OSI method, ASL writers can easily determine the version
> of the ACPI interfaces that the host operating system supports. This
> versioning method provides a solution for creating firmware that can
> support future operating systems and enable the operating system to
> change behavior based on the requested interface levels."
>
> We know that this is used for deciding whether or not to block system IO
> accesses, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's also used to determine
> other functionality like whether or not the ACPI interface is used for
> rebooting.
I've looked at _OSI use in over a hundred DSDTs and never
seen run-time re-configuration of reset support.
I do not think the BIOS has a run-time decision to make here.
If a box is designed to support Windows XP and newer, it is
likely that ACPI_RESET is simply valid and XP blindly uses it.
If reset fails, the box doesn't pass WHQL and the box is fixed.
If W2K is run on that box, ACPI_RESET is still valid, just that
W2K chooses to not write to it.
> > Further, there is no _guarantee_ that a BIOS will invoke _OSI
> > at all, let alone a _rule_ for what _OSI() strings the BIOS
> > will choose to query to trigger its Windows specific
> > compatibility hooks -- even if common practice is for
> > a desktop BIOS to evaluate _OSI strings in sequence
> > up throught he most recent version of Windows it
> > knows about...
>
> It's effectively guaranteed if the system is validated with Windows.
today's common industry practice != future guarantee
We can't rely on blind use of _OSI to mean "new enough", since
it was supported back in W2K era. That means we have to parse
the OSI strings. But what happens when a BIOS writer decides to
evaluate _OSI("Windows Future") without evaluating any of the
old strings we know about? We would disable ACPI reset on such
a future box?
thanks,
-Len
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-06 20:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20100104162114.GA30113@percival.namespace.at>
2010-01-04 17:15 ` [PATCH] Add DMI quirk for Intel DP55KG mainboard Len Brown
2010-01-04 17:30 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-04 22:03 ` Len Brown
2010-01-05 2:15 ` Robert Hancock
2010-01-05 3:37 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-05 12:30 ` [PATCH] Default to ACPI reboots on newish X86 hardware Christian Hofstaedtler
2010-01-05 17:04 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-05 18:26 ` Christian Hofstaedtler
2010-01-06 6:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-06 19:38 ` Len Brown
2010-01-07 20:03 ` Christian Hofstaedtler
2010-01-07 20:05 ` Christian Hofstaedtler
2010-01-07 23:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-20 5:21 ` Len Brown
2010-01-21 17:18 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86: Unify reboot_type selection Christian Hofstaedtler
2010-01-21 17:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] Default to ACPI reboots on newish X86 hardware Christian Hofstaedtler
2010-01-23 19:57 ` Len Brown
2010-01-21 18:29 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86: Unify reboot_type selection H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-21 17:24 ` [PATCH] Default to ACPI reboots on newish X86 hardware Christian Hofstaedtler
2010-01-05 1:45 ` [PATCH] Add DMI quirk for Intel DP55KG mainboard Arjan van de Ven
2010-01-06 14:36 ` Matthew Garrett
2010-01-06 19:26 ` Len Brown
2010-01-06 19:36 ` Matthew Garrett
2010-01-06 20:22 ` Len Brown [this message]
2010-01-06 20:29 ` Matthew Garrett
2010-01-06 21:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-20 5:06 ` Len Brown
2010-01-07 1:15 ` Robert Hancock
2010-01-06 7:41 ` Pavel Machek
2010-01-06 14:51 ` Alan Cox
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=alpine.LFD.2.00.1001061504110.4086@localhost.localdomain \
--to=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=bruce.w.allan@intel.com \
--cc=ch@zeha.at \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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