From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753410AbaBSJro (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 04:47:44 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:45371 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752641AbaBSJri (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 04:47:38 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,504,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="483952340" Message-ID: <53047DAB.10200@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:47:23 +0800 From: Jiang Liu Organization: Intel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maarten Lankhorst , David Airlie , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Dave Airlie , Emil Velikov CC: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nouveau, ACPI: fix regression caused by b072e53 References: <1392785628-30633-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1392785628-30633-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Maarten, Forgot to refresh my working tree. Please help to apply this patch on top of previous one to solve a compilation bug. diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/no index c6c7d0d..83face3 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ static int nouveau_check_optimus_dsm(acpi_handle handle) * Function 0 returns a Buffer containing available functions. * The args parameter is ignored for function 0, so just put 0 in it */ - if (nouveau_optimus_dsm(handle, 0, 0, &result) + if (nouveau_optimus_dsm(handle, 0, 0, &result)) return 0; On 2014/2/19 12:53, Jiang Liu wrote: > On some platforms, ACPI _DSM method (nouveau_op_dsm_muid, function 0) > has special requirements on the fourth parameter, which is different > from ACPI specifications. So revert to the private implementation > to check availability of _DSM functions instead of using common > acpi_check_dsm() interface. > > Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu > --- > Hi Maarten, > Thanks for bisecting. Could you please help to verify whether > this patch fixes the regression? > > Thanks! > Gerry > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c > index 4ef83df..c6c7d0d 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c > @@ -106,6 +106,29 @@ static int nouveau_optimus_dsm(acpi_handle handle, int func, int arg, uint32_t * > return 0; > } > > +/* > + * On some platforms, _DSM(nouveau_op_dsm_muid, func0) has special > + * requirements on the fourth parameter, so a private implementation > + * instead of using acpi_check_dsm(). > + */ > +static int nouveau_check_optimus_dsm(acpi_handle handle) > +{ > + int result; > + > + /* > + * Function 0 returns a Buffer containing available functions. > + * The args parameter is ignored for function 0, so just put 0 in it > + */ > + if (nouveau_optimus_dsm(handle, 0, 0, &result) > + return 0; > + > + /* > + * ACPI Spec v4 9.14.1: if bit 0 is zero, no function is supported. > + * If the n-th bit is enabled, function n is supported > + */ > + return result & 1 && result & (1 << NOUVEAU_DSM_OPTIMUS_CAPS); > +} > + > static int nouveau_dsm(acpi_handle handle, int func, int arg) > { > int ret = 0; > @@ -207,8 +230,7 @@ static int nouveau_dsm_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev) > 1 << NOUVEAU_DSM_POWER)) > retval |= NOUVEAU_DSM_HAS_MUX; > > - if (acpi_check_dsm(dhandle, nouveau_op_dsm_muid, 0x00000100, > - 1 << NOUVEAU_DSM_OPTIMUS_CAPS)) > + if (nouveau_check_optimus_dsm(dhandle)) > retval |= NOUVEAU_DSM_HAS_OPT; > > if (retval & NOUVEAU_DSM_HAS_OPT) { >