[PATCH v4 0/2] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries

[tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner)]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Al Stone wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 05:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi Al,
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> In the ACPI 5.1 version of the spec, the struct for the GICC subtable
> >> (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt) of the MADT is 76 bytes long; in
> >> ACPI 6.0, the struct is 80 bytes long.  But, there is only one definition
> >> in ACPICA for this struct -- and that is the 6.0 version.  Hence, when
> >> BAD_MADT_ENTRY() compares the struct size to the length in the GICC
> >> subtable, it fails if 5.1 structs are in use, and there are systems in
> >> the wild that have them.
> >>
> >> Note that this was found in linux-next and these patches apply against
> >> that tree and the arm64 kernel tree; 4.1 does not appear to have this
> >> problem since it still has the 5.1 struct definition.
> >>
> >> Though there is precedent in ia64 code for ignoring the changes in size,
> >> this patch set instead verifies correctness.  The first patch adds the
> >> BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() macro to check the GICC subtable only, accounting
> >> for the difference in specification versions that are possible.  The
> >> second patch replaces BAD_MADT_ENTRY usage with the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY
> >> macro in arm64 code, which is currently the only architecture affected.
> >> The BAD_MADT_ENTRY() will continue to work as is for all other MADT
> >> subtables.
> >>
> >> I have tested these patches on an APM Mustang with version 1.15 firmware,
> >> where the problem was found, and they fix the problem -- i.e., the system
> >> will boot with either Linux 4.1 or linux-next kernels using the same ACPI
> >> 5.1 compatible firmware.
> > 
> > ACK for the series, but I guess it's better to let it go via ARM64, right?
> > 
> > Rafael
> 
> Thanks, Rafael.  Yeah, probably so.  Will has ACKd the one patch
> (2/2); if he and/or Catalin ACK patch 1/2, then this seems like it
> would pretty cleanly fit into ARM64.  The only question would be if
> Will or Catalin would want an ACK from Thomas on the irq-gic.c part
> in 2/2.

No objections from my side.

Thanks,

	tglx