From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>,
Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
devel@acpica.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/5] ACPI: Do not call _STA on battery devices with unmet dependencies
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:51:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180122085135.16732-1-hdegoede@redhat.com> (raw)
Hi All,
Here is v2 of this set, new in v2 is the addressing of Bjorn's comments
to the "PCI: acpiphp_ibm: prepare for acpi_get_object_info no longer
returning status" patch and a new patch (the first patch in v2) which
exports acpi_bus_get_status_handle() for use in modules as acpiphp_ibm
will now depend on it.
Here is the old coverletter from v1 (adjusted for the new patch):
The ACPI code already contains quite a bit of code to not bind the
ACPI-battery until all deps for an ACPI battery device have been met,
but on some devices calling _STA before all deps are met is a problem
too because the _STA method uses an i2c OpRegion there.
Here is the DSDT of the device I'm seeing this on:
https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/toshiba-click-mini-dsdt.dsl
This series modifies the kernel to not call _STA until all deps are met,
mirroring the binding behavior of the battery driver.
Without this series a total of 32 ACPI errors get printend to the console
on boot, there are 4 errors per _STA call, 2 battery devices on this
system and 4 _STA calls per battery device.
The first 2 commits are preparation commits for making the ACPICA changes
in the 4th commit, these commits are necessary to not break things after
the ACPICA changes.
The 3th commit modifies acpi_bus_get_status to not call _STA on
battery devices until all deps are met. This fixes 2 of the 4 too early
_STA calls triggering these errors.
The 4th commit makes the device instantiation code use
acpi_bus_get_status instead of acpi_bus_get_status_handle so that the
code to get the initial status also does not makes 1 too early _STA call.
The 5th commit changes the ACPICA acpi_get_object_info function to not
call _STA. Only 1 user (which is fixed in the first commit) cares about
acpi_device_info.current_status. And the ACPICA code has this comment:
* Note: This interface is intended to be used during the initial device
* discovery namespace traversal. Therefore, no complex methods can be
* executed, especially those that access operation regions. Therefore, do
* not add any additional methods that could cause problems in this area.
* Because of this reason support for the following methods has been removed:
* this was the fate of the _SUB method which was found to cause such
* problems and was removed (11/2015).
The described problems with the _SUB method clearly also apply to the _STA
method, so removing it from acpi_get_object_info seems like it is the right
thing to do here. This too fixes 1 too early _STA call, so that with all
5 patches in place we've fixed all 4 too early _STA calls.
Regards,
Hans
next reply other threads:[~2018-01-22 8:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-22 8:51 Hans de Goede [this message]
2018-01-22 8:51 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] ACPI: export acpi_bus_get_status_handle() Hans de Goede
2018-01-22 23:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-26 14:50 ` Hans de Goede
2018-01-22 8:51 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] PCI: acpiphp_ibm: prepare for acpi_get_object_info() no longer returning status Hans de Goede
2018-01-22 8:51 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] ACPI / bus: Do not call _STA on battery devices with unmet dependencies Hans de Goede
2018-01-22 8:51 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] ACPI / scan: Use acpi_bus_get_status for initial status of ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE devs Hans de Goede
2018-01-22 8:51 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] ACPICA: Remove calling of _STA from acpi_get_object_info Hans de Goede
2018-02-08 9:57 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] ACPI: Do not call _STA on battery devices with unmet dependencies Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-02-08 12:19 ` Hans de Goede
2018-02-08 17:34 ` Moore, Robert
2018-02-14 10:33 ` Hans de Goede
2018-02-14 15:28 ` Moore, Robert
2018-02-26 8:42 ` Hans de Goede
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=20180122085135.16732-1-hdegoede@redhat.com \
--to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=devel@acpica.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=robert.moore@intel.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).