lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v2 05/18] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse FADT table to get PSCI flags for PSCI init
Date
I should warn you that FADT version numbers are notoriously unreliable; In fact, in ACPICA we were eventually forced to abandon them entirely. We use the actual size of the FADT instead.

Bob



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hanjun Guo [mailto:hanjun.guo@linaro.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:14 AM
> To: Mark Rutland
> Cc: Catalin Marinas; Rafael J. Wysocki; graeme.gregory@linaro.org; Arnd
> Bergmann; Olof Johansson; grant.likely@linaro.org; Sudeep Holla; Will
> Deacon; Jason Cooper; Marc Zyngier; Bjorn Helgaas; Daniel Lezcano; Mark
> Brown; Rob Herring; Robert Richter; Zheng, Lv; Moore, Robert; Lorenzo
> Pieralisi; Liviu Dudau; Randy Dunlap; Charles Garcia-Tobin; linux-
> acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/18] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse FADT table to get PSCI
> flags for PSCI init
>
> On 2014-8-19 19:10, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>>> @@ -47,6 +49,26 @@ void __init __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned
> long size)
> >>>> early_memunmap(map, size);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static int __init acpi_parse_fadt(struct acpi_table_header *table)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt = (struct acpi_table_fadt
> *)table;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * Revision in table header is the FADT Major version,
> >>>> + * and there is a minor version of FADT which was introduced
> >>>> + * by ACPI 5.1, we only deal with ACPI 5.1 or higher version
> >>>> + * to get arm boot flags, or we will disable ACPI.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (table->revision < 5 || fadt->minor_revision < 1) {
> >>>
> >>> If we ever get revision 6.0, this would trigger.
> >>
> >> Yes, good catch, actually I already fixed that in my local git repo,
> >>
> >> + if (table->revision > 5 ||
> >> + (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision >= 1)) {
> >> + return 0;
> >> + } else {
> >> + pr_info("FADT revision is %d.%d, no PSCI support,
> >> + should be 5.1
> >> or higher\n",
> >> + table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
> >> + disable_acpi();
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >
> > Given you return in the first path, you don't need the remaining code
> > to live in an else block.
>
> Agreed, I will update it, and move disable_acpi() outside this function
> and keep it in one place as Sudeep suggested.
>
> Thanks
> Hanjun



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-08-20 01:21    [W:0.135 / U:0.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site