Re: [PATCH v8 09/21] ARM64 / ACPI: Disable ACPI if FADT revision is less than 5.1
From: Hanjun Guo
Date: Thu Feb 05 2015 - 04:45:59 EST
On 2015å02æ04æ 21:06, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 09:38:25AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2015å02æ04æ 01:20, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 12:45:37PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
index afe10b4..b9f64ec 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@
* published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "ACPI: " fmt
+
#include <linux/acpi.h>
#include <linux/bootmem.h>
#include <linux/cpumask.h>
@@ -49,10 +51,32 @@ void __init __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned long size)
early_memunmap(map, size);
}
+static int __init acpi_parse_fadt(struct acpi_table_header *table)
+{
+ struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt = (struct acpi_table_fadt *)table;
+
+ /*
+ * Revision in table header is the FADT Major revision, and there
+ * is a minor revision of FADT which was introduced by ACPI 5.1,
+ * we only deal with ACPI 5.1 or newer revision to get GIC and SMP
+ * boot protocol configuration data, or we will disable ACPI.
+ */
+ if (table->revision > 5 ||
+ (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision >= 1))
+ return 0;
+
+ pr_warn("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+, will disable ACPI\n",
+ table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
+ disable_acpi();
+
+ return -EINVAL;
+}
+
/*
* acpi_boot_table_init() called from setup_arch(), always.
* 1. find RSDP and get its address, and then find XSDT
* 2. extract all tables and checksums them all
+ * 3. check ACPI FADT revision
*
* We can parse ACPI boot-time tables such as MADT after
* this function is called.
@@ -64,8 +88,16 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
return;
/* Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser. */
- if (acpi_table_init())
+ if (acpi_table_init()) {
+ disable_acpi();
+ return;
+ }
+
+ if (acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt)) {
+ /* disable ACPI if no FADT is found */
disable_acpi();
+ pr_err("Can't find FADT\n");
+ }
}
It looks fine to call disable_acpi() here but a bit weird to call it
again in acpi_parse_fadt(). I guess that's because acpi_table_parse()
ignores the return value of the handler() call. I think it's better to
fix the core code (can be an additional patch on top of this series).
I checked all the code calling acpi_table_parse() and I found that it
will be no functional change if we return the value of handler(), but
I need Rafael's confirm on it.
Are you sure ? All calls to acpi_table_parse() that checks the return
value are affected. I guess that depends on what an error return from
the handler means, from acpi_table_parse():
* Return 0 if table found, -errno if not.
Yes, you are right. What I mean for the "no functional change" because
of most handler passed to acpi_table_parse() just return 0, I didn't
describe it clearly, my bad.
In ARM64 case, I find that we can not disable ACPI even if we return
error for the handler, for example, we return -EOPNOTSUPP when there is
no PSCI support, we can go on with cpu0 boot only.
So, if table is found but parsing fails that acpi_table_parse()
signature should be changed if the handler barfs with an error and
it is propagated. Still, I share Catalin's comment.
Sorry, I don't understand the last sentence, do you mean you agree
with Catalin to return the result of handler()?
Thanks
Hanjun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/