diff mbox

nouveau, ACPI: fix regression caused by b072e53

Message ID 1392785628-30633-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Jiang Liu Feb. 19, 2014, 4:53 a.m. UTC 
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 <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>
---
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(-)

Comments

Jiang Liu Feb. 19, 2014, 2:12 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 2014/2/19 18:12, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> op 19-02-14 05:53, Jiang Liu schreef:
>> 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 <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> Hi Maarten,
>>     Thanks for bisecting. Could you please help to verify whether
>> this patch fixes the regression?
>>
> Tested-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>
> 
> I was wrong about the operator precedence, seems correct after all. :-)
Hi Maarten,
	Thanks for testing.
Cheers!
Gerry
diff mbox

Patch

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) {