Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753563AbbF3SZk (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:25:40 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:38598 "EHLO mail-wi0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753309AbbF3SZg (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:25:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5592D1FF.7040208@redhat.com> References: <1434666968-1543-1-git-send-email-al.stone@linaro.org> <5592CCE6.6040604@arm.com> <5592D1FF.7040208@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 20:25:34 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: YjvvYcd_PIKgEE6H3gy8Z3SXjas Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Al Stone Cc: Sudeep Holla , Al Stone , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "lenb@kernel.org" , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "jason@lakedaemon.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , "patches@linaro.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2932 Lines: 66 Hi Al, On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Al Stone wrote: > On 06/30/2015 11:07 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Hi Al, >> >> On 18/06/15 23:36, Al Stone wrote: >>> In the ACPI 5.1 version of the spec, the struct for the GICC subtable >>> (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt) of the MADT is 76 bytes long; in >>> ACPI 6.0, the struct is 80 bytes long. But, there is only one definition >>> in ACPICA for this struct -- and that is the 6.0 version. Hence, when >>> BAD_MADT_ENTRY() compares the struct size to the length in the GICC >>> subtable, it fails if 5.1 structs are in use, and there are systems in >>> the wild that have them. >>> >>> Note that this was found in linux-next and these patches apply against >>> that tree and the arm64 kernel tree; 4.1-rc8 does not appear to have this >>> problem since it still has the 5.1 struct definition. >>> >>> Even though there is precendent in ia64 code for ignoring the changes in >>> size, this patch set instead tries to verify correctness. The first patch >>> in the set adds macros for easily using the ACPI spec version. The second >>> patch adds the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() macro that uses the version macros to >>> check the GICC subtable only, accounting for the difference in specification >>> versions that are possible. The final patch replaces BAD_MADT_ENTRY usage >>> with the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY macro in arm64 code, which is currently the >>> only architecture affected. The BAD_MADT_ENTRY() will continue to work as >>> is for all other MADT subtables. >>> >> >> We need to get this series or a patch to remove the check(similar to >> ia64) based on what Rafael prefers. Without that, platforms using ACPI >> on ARM64 fails to boot with latest mainline. This blocks any testing on >> ARM64/ACPI systems. >> >> Regards, >> Sudeep > > I have not received any other feedback than some Reviewed-bys from > Hanjun and an ACK from Will for the arm64 patch. > > And absolutely agreed: this is a blocker for arm64/ACPI, starting with > the ACPICA 20150515 patches which appear to have gone in with 4.2-rc1. > > Rafael? Ping? I overlooked the fact that this was needed to fix a recent regression, sorry about that. Actually, if your patch fixes an error introduced by a specific commit, it is good to use the Fixes: tag to indicate that. Which I still would like to do, so which commit is fixed by this? > Do we need these to go through your tree or the arm64 > tree? Without this series (or an ia64-like solution), we have ACPI > systems in the field that cannot boot. I'm not quite sure why the definition of BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY has to go into include/linux/acpi.h. Why is it necessary in there? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/