Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751363AbdHFQSK (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:18:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39528 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751300AbdHFQSI (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:18:08 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 7309375712 Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=hdegoede@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: platform/x86: wmi: Fix check for method instance number To: =?UTF-8?Q?Pali_Roh=c3=a1r?= , Darren Hart Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Andy Lutomirski , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1495886134-8276-1-git-send-email-pali.rohar@gmail.com> <20170613184228.GC22450@fury> <20170614154654.GA22981@pali> <201708061742.57031@pali> From: Hans de Goede Message-ID: <7d7a104b-1555-8a7c-352b-cd5e4b4ac153@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 18:18:06 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201708061742.57031@pali> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Sun, 06 Aug 2017 16:18:08 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3515 Lines: 115 Hi, On 06-08-17 17:42, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Wednesday 14 June 2017 17:46:54 Pali Rohár wrote: >> On Tuesday 13 June 2017 11:42:28 Darren Hart wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 08:04:57PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: >>>> On Tuesday 13 June 2017 18:49:51 Darren Hart wrote: >>>>> I'd suggest reaching out to the maintainers and contributors to >>>>> the drivers you mention to request some help in testing. >>>> >>>> Seems sane. Grep for all methods with instance number different >>>> as zero (or just number one -- which can be suspicious as >>>> somebody could thought that indexing is from one, not zer) and >>>> try to receive ACPI/BMOF data and verify it. >>> >>> This would still be the ideal solution, verify we can do the right >>> thing without breaking existing drivers. Agreed. >> >> Here is all usage: >> >> Function wmi_set_block: >> >> msi-wmi.c: >> instance=0 /* Instance 0 is "set backlight" */ >> >> tc1100-wmi.c: >> instance=TC1100_INSTANCE_WIRELESS /* defined as 1 */ >> instance=TC1100_INSTANCE_JOGDIAL /* defined as 2 */ >> >> Function wmi_query_block: >> >> acer-wmi.c: >> instance=1 /* no comment why, >> guid=95764E09-FB56-4E83-B31A-37761F60994A */ >> >> dell-wmi.c: >> instance=0 >> >> msi-wmi.c: >> instance=1 /* Instance 1 is "get backlight", cmp with DSDT */ >> >> surface3-wmi.c: >> instance=0 >> >> tc1100-wmi.c: >> (same as in wmi_set_block) >> >> Function wmi_evaluate_method: >> >> acer-wmi.c: >> instance=1 /* no comment why, >> guid=67C3371D-95A3-4C37-BB61-DD47B491DAAB */ instance=1 /* no >> comment why, guid=6AF4F258-B401-42FD-BE91-3D4AC2D7C0D3 */ instance=0 >> >> alienware-wmi.c: >> instance=1 /* no comment why, >> guid=A70591CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */ instance=1 /* no >> comment why, guid=A80593CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */ instance=1 >> /* no comment why, guid=A70591CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */ >> >> asus-wmi.c: >> instance=1 /* no comment why, >> guid=97845ED0-4E6D-11DE-8A39-0800200C9A66 */ >> >> dell-wmi-led.c: >> instance=1 /* no comment why, >> guid=F6E4FE6E-909D-47cb-8BAB-C9F6F2F8D396 */ >> >> hp-wmi.c: >> instance=0 >> >> mxm-wmi.c: >> instance=1 /* no comment why, >> guid=F6CB5C3C-9CAE-4EBD-B577-931EA32A2CC0 */ >> >> So problematic drivers which use instance=1 without any comments are: >> >> acer-wmi >> alienware-wmi >> asus-wmi >> dell-wmi-led >> mxm-wmi > > Also there is a new problematic driver named peaq-wmi.c added by Hans. > Adding into loop. Hans, can you recheck if arguments for > wmi_evaluate_method() are correct, specially instance number "1"? Ok, so looking at wmi_evaluate_method() the instance number becomes arg0 and the DSDT implementation of the WMBC method which is the one we care about is: Method (WMBC, 3, NotSerialized) { If (Arg1 == 0x05) { Local0 = ^^GPO0.DBLY /* \_SB_.GPO0.DBLY */ ^^GPO0.DBLY = Zero Return (Local0) } Return (0xFFFFFFFF) } So the instance_index / Arg0 does not matter. I just tested passing 0 and that works fine. Feel free to change this if that helps with the wmi refactoring. Interestingly enough passing wmi.debug_dump_wdg=1 shows that the BC object claims to have 10 instances, but the whole peaq-wmi interface appears to be a messy quick hack from the manufacturer, so that is not surprising. Regards, Hans