Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks

[Hanjun Guo]

On 10/12/2015 11:58 AM, 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.

Thanks! I think I had the right guess, the MADT revision is not right
for ACPI 4.0:

[000h 0000   4]                    Signature : "APIC"    [Multiple APIC 
Description Table (MADT)]
[004h 0004   4]                 Table Length : 000000BC
[008h 0008   1]                     *Revision : 01*

I encountered such problem before because the table was just copied from
previous version, and without the update for table revision.

I think we may need to ignore the table revision for x86, but restrict
it for ARM64, I'd like Al and Rafael's suggestion before I send out a
patch.

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/