[PATCH 3.12 103/122] ACPI idle: permit sparse C-state sub-state numbers

From: Jiri Slaby
Date: Tue Feb 17 2015 - 06:49:04 EST

From: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>

3.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.


commit 2194324d8bbbad1b179c08b6095649b06abd62d5 upstream.

Linux uses CPUID.MWAIT.EDX to validate the C-states
reported by ACPI, silently discarding states which
are not supported by the HW.

This test is too restrictive, as some HW now uses
sparse sub-state numbering, so the sub-state number
may be higher than the number of sub-states...

Also, rather than silently ignoring an invalid state,
we should complain about a firmware bug.

In practice...

Bay Trail systems originally supported C6-no-shrink as
MWAIT sub-state 0x58, and in CPUID.MWAIT.EDX 0x03000000
indicated that there were 3 MWAIT-C6 sub-states.
So acpi_idle would discard that C-state because 8 >= 3.

Upon discovering this issue, the ucode was updated so that
C6-no-shrink was also exported as 0x51, and the BIOS was
updated to match. However, systems shipped with 0x58,
will never get a BIOS update, and this patch allows
Linux to see C6-no-shrink on early Bay Trail.

Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx>
arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
index d2b7f27781bc..40df29f2b87f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
@@ -87,7 +87,9 @@ static long acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe_cpu(void *_cx)
num_cstate_subtype = edx_part & MWAIT_SUBSTATE_MASK;

retval = 0;
- if (num_cstate_subtype < (cx->address & MWAIT_SUBSTATE_MASK)) {
+ /* If the HW does not support any sub-states in this C-state */
+ if (num_cstate_subtype == 0) {
+ pr_warn(FW_BUG "ACPI MWAIT C-state 0x%x not supported by HW (0x%x)\n", cx->address, edx_part);
retval = -1;
goto out;

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/