Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 26 Mar 2020 17:36:37 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        ashok.raj@intel.com, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 10/11] PCI/DPC: Add Error Disconnect Recover (EDR)
 support
Message-ID: <20200326223637.GA106135@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f71c989b-b8f8-3437-b086-a97c2aa1e2c5@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 06:00:31PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 3/24/20 2:37 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > This is really ugly.  What's the story on this firmware?  It sounds
> > defective to me.
>
> I think there is no defined standard for this. I have checked few
> _DSM implementations. Some of them return default value and some
> don't. But atleast in the test hardware I use, we need this check.

I agree that I don't see anything in the ACPI spec v6.3 about what
should happen if we supply a Function Index that isn't supported.
That looks like a hole in the spec.

> > Or is everybody that uses _DSM supposed to check before evaluating it?
>
> I think its safer to do this check.
>
> > E.g.,
> > 
> >    if (!acpi_check_dsm(...))
> >      return -EINVAL;
> > 
> >    obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm(...);
> > 
> > If everybody is supposed to do this, it seems like the check part
> > should be moved into acpi_evaluate_dsm().

So my question, and I guess this is really for Rafael, is that since
it seems like *everybody* needs to use acpi_check_dsm() in order to
use acpi_evaluate_dsm() safely, why don't we move the check *into*
acpi_evaluate_dsm()?

It's just error prone if we expect everybody to call both interfaces.

Bjorn