Re: [PATCH v8 01/17] Xen: ACPI: Hide UART used by Xen

Stefano Stabellini
2016-03-26T12:45:48Z

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 04:05:49PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> > From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
> >
> > ACPI 6.0 introduces a new table STAO to list the devices which are used
> > by Xen and can't be used by Dom0. On Xen virtual platforms, the physical
> > UART is used by Xen. So here it hides UART from Dom0.
> >
> > CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> (supporter:ACPI)
> > CC: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> (supporter:ACPI)
> > CC: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org (open list:ACPI)
> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > index 5f28cf7..5420cc5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(acpi_scan_handlers_list);
> > DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_device_lock);
> > LIST_HEAD(acpi_wakeup_device_list);
> > static DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_hp_context_lock);
> > +static u64 spcr_uart_addr;
> >
> > struct acpi_dep_data {
> > struct list_head node;
> > @@ -1453,6 +1454,41 @@ static int acpi_add_single_object(struct acpi_device **child,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static acpi_status acpi_get_resource_memory(struct acpi_resource *ares,
> > + void *context)
> > +{
> > + struct resource *res = context;
> > +
> > + if (acpi_dev_resource_memory(ares, res))
> > + return AE_CTRL_TERMINATE;
> > +
> > + return AE_OK;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool acpi_device_should_be_hidden(acpi_handle handle)
> > +{
> > + acpi_status status;
> > + struct resource res;
> > +
> > + /* Check if it should ignore the UART device */
> > + if (spcr_uart_addr != 0) {
> > + if (!acpi_has_method(handle, METHOD_NAME__CRS))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + status = acpi_walk_resources(handle, METHOD_NAME__CRS,
> > + acpi_get_resource_memory, &res);
> > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (res.start == spcr_uart_addr) {
> > + printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "The UART device in SPCR table will be hidden\n");
>
> Can we at least print out the ACPI device path and address here for
> debugging purposes? IMHO, kernel messages that contain only static
> text are always dubious. There's almost always a useful address, IRQ,
> return value, etc., that could be included.
>
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int acpi_bus_type_and_status(acpi_handle handle, int *type,
> > unsigned long long *sta)
> > {
> > @@ -1466,6 +1502,9 @@ static int acpi_bus_type_and_status(acpi_handle handle, int *type,
> > switch (acpi_type) {
> > case ACPI_TYPE_ANY: /* for ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT */
> > case ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE:
> > + if (acpi_device_should_be_hidden(handle))
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > *type = ACPI_BUS_TYPE_DEVICE;
> > status = acpi_bus_get_status_handle(handle, sta);
> > if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > @@ -1916,9 +1955,24 @@ static int acpi_bus_scan_fixed(void)
> > return result < 0 ? result : 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static void __init acpi_get_spcr_uart_addr(void)
> > +{
> > + acpi_status status;
> > + struct acpi_table_spcr *spcr_ptr;
> > +
> > + status = acpi_get_table(ACPI_SIG_SPCR, 0,
> > + (struct acpi_table_header **)&spcr_ptr);
> > + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status))
> > + spcr_uart_addr = spcr_ptr->serial_port.address;
> > + else
> > + printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "STAO table present, but SPCR is missing\n");
> > +}
> > +
> > int __init acpi_scan_init(void)
> > {
> > int result;
> > + acpi_status status;
> > + struct acpi_table_stao *stao_ptr;
> >
> > acpi_pci_root_init();
> > acpi_pci_link_init();
> > @@ -1934,6 +1988,20 @@ int __init acpi_scan_init(void)
> >
> > acpi_scan_add_handler(&generic_device_handler);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * If there is STAO table, check whether it needs to ignore the UART
> > + * device in SPCR table.
> > + */
> > + status = acpi_get_table(ACPI_SIG_STAO, 0,
> > + (struct acpi_table_header **)&stao_ptr);
> > + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> > + if (stao_ptr->header.length > sizeof(struct acpi_table_stao))
> > + printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "STAO Name List not yet supported.");
> > +
> > + if (stao_ptr->ignore_uart)
> > + acpi_get_spcr_uart_addr();
> > + }
>
> This all seems sort of ad hoc. Are UARTs the only things that can be
> listed in STAO? If STAO can contain things other than UARTs, are we
> going to see more patches adding special-case code like this?

The UART (specifically the UART described by the SPCR table) is the only
object which needs special-casing. Everything else is covered by ACPI
namespace paths (which is what the message above is about, given that it
is not supported by this patch).