From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@gmail.com>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>,
Vincent Wan <Vincent.Wan@amd.com>,
linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] input: i8042: add quirk to implement i8042 detect for AMD
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:38:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151017163847.GB13470@dtor-ws> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151016102155.GD31612@pd.tnic>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:21:55PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 05:35:40PM +0800, Wan ZongShun wrote:
> > 2015-10-16 16:58 GMT+08:00 Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>:
> > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 09:27:00AM -0400, Vincent Wan wrote:
> > >> Detecting platform supports i8042 or not, AMD resorted to
> > >> BIOS's FADT i8042 flag.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Vincent Wan <Vincent.Wan@amd.com>
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/input/serio/i8042-x86ia64io.h | 6 ++++++
> > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > >> /*
> > >> @@ -1047,6 +1048,11 @@ static int __init i8042_platform_init(void)
> > >> /* Just return if pre-detection shows no i8042 controller exist */
> > >> if (!x86_platform.i8042_detect())
> > >> return -ENODEV;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) {
> > >
> > > Why the vendor check if you're accessing a bit defined in the ACPI spec?
> >
> > From intel's 'x86_platform.i8042_detect' implementation, I doubt if
> > their BIOS is providing this i8024 flag.
>
> Why would you doubt that - it is at least in ACPI v4, if not earlier. If
> you still doubt that, go and check it or ask Intel people.
>
> > So I have to implement my codes carefully.
>
> What are you people talking about?!
>
> It is in the ACPI spec - this bit is either set or not. If it is not
Well, the fact that is is in a spec does not mean that vendors follow
it (and BTW I do not think that AMD as a CPU vendor can vouch for a
random notebook or desktop vendor that acquired and then hacked on some
version of some BIOS from some BIOS vendor so I agree that this check is
a no-go).
Historically we did not trust BIOS data with regard to i8042 on x86.
Maybe we should now using certain date cutoff (anything manufactured
past 201[2345?]).
Does Windows respect this flag? If it does then we could also trust it,
and not only on AMD but for all x86 CPUs.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-17 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-16 13:27 [PATCH] input: i8042: add quirk to implement i8042 detect for AMD Vincent Wan
2015-10-16 8:58 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-10-16 9:06 ` Huang Rui
2015-10-16 9:35 ` Wan ZongShun
2015-10-16 10:21 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-10-17 16:38 ` Dmitry Torokhov [this message]
2015-11-19 14:40 ` Wan, Vincent
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=20151017163847.GB13470@dtor-ws \
--to=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=Vincent.Wan@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcuos.com@gmail.com \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).