| Message ID | 561EB923.6010109@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 02:20:51 PM Al Stone wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > --------------020400080004050109020606 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On 10/12/2015 10:06 PM, Pat Erley wrote: > > On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Al Stone wrote: > >> On 10/11/2015 09:58 PM, Pat Erley wrote: > >>> On 10/11/2015 08:49 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >>>> On 10/12/2015 11:08 AM, Pat Erley wrote: > >>>>> On 10/05/2015 10:12 AM, Al Stone wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/05/2015 07:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:10:16 AM Al Stone wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 09/30/2015 03:00 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 2015/9/30 7:45, Al Stone wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> NB: this patch set is for use against the linux-pm bleeding edge > >>>>>>>>>> branch. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [snip...] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> For this patch set, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>> Hanjun > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, Hanjun! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Series applied, thanks! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Rafael > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, Rafael! > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Just decided to test out linux-next (to see the new nouveau cleanups). > >>>>> This change set prevents my Lenovo W510 from booting properly. > >>>>> > >>>>> Reverting: 7494b0 "ACPI: add in a bad_madt_entry() function to > >>>>> eventually replace the macro" > >>>>> > >>>>> Gets the system booting again. I'm attaching my dmesg from the failed > >>>>> boot, who wants the acpidump? > >>>> > >>>> [ 0.000000] ACPI: undefined version for either FADT 4.0 or MADT 1 > >>>> [ 0.000000] ACPI: Error parsing LAPIC address override entry > >>>> [ 0.000000] ACPI: Invalid BIOS MADT, disabling ACPI > >>>> > >>>> Seems the MADT revision is not right, could you dump the ACPI MADT > >>>> (APIC) table and send it out? I will take a look :) > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Hanjun > >>> > >>> Here ya go, enjoy. Feel free to CC me on any patches that might fix it. > >> > >> Pat, > >> > >> Would you mind sending a copy of the FADT, also, please? The first of the > >> ACPI messages is a check of version correspondence between the FADT and MADT, > >> while the second message is from looking at just an MADT subtable. Thanks > >> for sending the MADT out -- that helps me quite a lot in thinking this through. > >> > >> BTW, whoever is providing the BIOS (Lenovo, I assume) may want to have a look > >> at these, also: > >> > >> [ 0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): 32/64X length mismatch in > >> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 16/32 (20150818/tbfadt-623) > >> [ 0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): Invalid length for > >> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 32, using default 16 (20150818/tbfadt-704) > >> > >> Not inherently dangerous, but definitely sloppy and mind-numbingly easy to > >> avoid, IIRC. > >> > > > > Here ya go. > > Okay. There's just a lot of weird stuff out there in ACPI-land. I've > attached four minor fixes for the special cases that have been reported > (well, the last one is actually a fix for a typo in the spec, but just > the same...). > > These should apply on top of linux-next; would you mind trying them out > to make sure I didn't break anything else on your laptop? If they behave > as I hope they will, I think I'll have covered all the places where the > checking of MADT subtables needs to be be relaxed a bit. These work for > me on arm64, but if they work for you and a couple of other testers, then > I'll send them to Rafael properly. Well, you might as well submit them properly right away, so I could pick them up and put them into my linux-next branch, which then might make it easier for some people to test them. Thanks, Rafael
On 10/14/2015 03:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 02:20:51 PM Al Stone wrote: >> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. >> --------------020400080004050109020606 >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> On 10/12/2015 10:06 PM, Pat Erley wrote: >>> On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Al Stone wrote: >>>> On 10/11/2015 09:58 PM, Pat Erley wrote: >>>>> On 10/11/2015 08:49 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>>> On 10/12/2015 11:08 AM, Pat Erley wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/05/2015 10:12 AM, Al Stone wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/05/2015 07:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:10:16 AM Al Stone wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 09/30/2015 03:00 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2015/9/30 7:45, Al Stone wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> NB: this patch set is for use against the linux-pm bleeding edge >>>>>>>>>>>> branch. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [snip...] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For this patch set, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>> Hanjun >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Hanjun! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Series applied, thanks! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafael >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, Rafael! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just decided to test out linux-next (to see the new nouveau cleanups). >>>>>>> This change set prevents my Lenovo W510 from booting properly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reverting: 7494b0 "ACPI: add in a bad_madt_entry() function to >>>>>>> eventually replace the macro" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gets the system booting again. I'm attaching my dmesg from the failed >>>>>>> boot, who wants the acpidump? >>>>>> >>>>>> [ 0.000000] ACPI: undefined version for either FADT 4.0 or MADT 1 >>>>>> [ 0.000000] ACPI: Error parsing LAPIC address override entry >>>>>> [ 0.000000] ACPI: Invalid BIOS MADT, disabling ACPI >>>>>> >>>>>> Seems the MADT revision is not right, could you dump the ACPI MADT >>>>>> (APIC) table and send it out? I will take a look :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Hanjun >>>>> >>>>> Here ya go, enjoy. Feel free to CC me on any patches that might fix it. >>>> >>>> Pat, >>>> >>>> Would you mind sending a copy of the FADT, also, please? The first of the >>>> ACPI messages is a check of version correspondence between the FADT and MADT, >>>> while the second message is from looking at just an MADT subtable. Thanks >>>> for sending the MADT out -- that helps me quite a lot in thinking this through. >>>> >>>> BTW, whoever is providing the BIOS (Lenovo, I assume) may want to have a look >>>> at these, also: >>>> >>>> [ 0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): 32/64X length mismatch in >>>> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 16/32 (20150818/tbfadt-623) >>>> [ 0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): Invalid length for >>>> FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 32, using default 16 (20150818/tbfadt-704) >>>> >>>> Not inherently dangerous, but definitely sloppy and mind-numbingly easy to >>>> avoid, IIRC. >>>> >>> >>> Here ya go. >> >> Okay. There's just a lot of weird stuff out there in ACPI-land. I've >> attached four minor fixes for the special cases that have been reported >> (well, the last one is actually a fix for a typo in the spec, but just >> the same...). >> >> These should apply on top of linux-next; would you mind trying them out >> to make sure I didn't break anything else on your laptop? If they behave >> as I hope they will, I think I'll have covered all the places where the >> checking of MADT subtables needs to be be relaxed a bit. These work for >> me on arm64, but if they work for you and a couple of other testers, then >> I'll send them to Rafael properly. > > Well, you might as well submit them properly right away, so I could pick > them up and put them into my linux-next branch, which then might make it > easier for some people to test them. > > Thanks, > Rafael > Fair enough. I was just being overly cautious about possible further breakage. Done. Patch series sent to the list.
From 6d3189ccfcbac9a61e6502df70499bd2ee808509 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:31:50 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] ACPI: for bad_madt_entry(), the GIC ITS table is 20 bytes long, not 16 Correct a typo where bad_madt_entry() expected the MADT GIC ITS subtable to be 16 bytes long, but it is actually 20 bytes. This is a cut'n'paste error picked up from the spec and inadvertently replicated in code. Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org> --- drivers/acpi/tables.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c index 790d4b0..1b7c13e 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c @@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ void acpi_table_print_madt_entry(struct acpi_subtable_header *header) * GICD 0xc 24 24 24 * GICv2m MSI 0xd 24 24 * GICR 0xe 16 16 - * GIC ITS 0xf 16 + * GIC ITS 0xf 20 * * In the table, each length entry is what should be in the length * field of the subtable, and -- in general -- it should match the @@ -366,7 +366,7 @@ static struct acpi_madt_subtable_lengths spec_info[] = { .madt_version = 3, .num_types = 16, .lengths = { 8, 12, 10, 8, 6, 12, 16, SUBTABLE_VARIABLE, - 16, 16, 12, 80, 24, 24, 16, 16 } + 16, 16, 12, 80, 24, 24, 16, 20 } }, { /* terminator */ .major_version = 0, -- 2.4.3