lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] ACPI: bus: _OSC fixes
    On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 11:29 PM Armin Wolf <W_Armin@gmx.de> wrote:
    >
    > Am 12.03.24 um 21:10 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
    >
    > > On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 9:13 PM Armin Wolf <W_Armin@gmx.de> wrote:
    > >> This patch series fixes the handling of various ACPI features bits
    > >> when evaluating _OSC.
    > >>
    > >> The first three patches fix the reporting of various features supported
    > >> by the kernel, while the fourth patch corrects the feature bit used to
    > >> indicate support for the "Generic Initiator Affinity" in SRAT.
    > >>
    > >> The last patch fixes the reporting of IRQ ResourceSource support. Unlike
    > >> the other feature bits, the ACPI specification states that this feature
    > >> bit might be used by the ACPI firmware to indicate whether or not it
    > >> supports the usage of IRQ ResourceSource:
    > >>
    > >> "If not set, the OS may choose to ignore the ResourceSource
    > >> parameter in the extended interrupt descriptor."
    > >>
    > >> Since the code responsible for parsing IRQ ResourceSource already checks
    > >> if ResourceSource is present, i assumed that we can omit taking this
    > >> into account.
    > >>
    > >> All patches where tested on a Asus Prime B650-Plus and a Dell Inspiron
    > >> 3505.
    > >>
    > >> Armin Wolf (5):
    > >> ACPI: bus: Indicate support for _TFP thru _OSC
    > >> ACPI: bus: Indicate support for more than 16 p-states thru _OSC
    > >> ACPI: bus: Indicate support for the Generic Event Device thru _OSC
    > >> ACPI: Fix Generic Initiator Affinity _OSC bit
    > >> ACPI: bus: Indicate support for IRQ ResourceSource thru _OSC
    > >>
    > >> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 5 +++++
    > >> include/linux/acpi.h | 6 +++++-
    > >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
    > >>
    > >> --
    > > All of that looks reasonable to me, but do you know about systems in
    > > the field where any of these patches actually fix functionality?
    > >
    > > If not, I'd prefer to queue them up for 6.10 as they are likely to
    > > change behavior, at least in corner cases.
    > >
    > > Thanks!
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > i know no system which even queries those feature bits, so i am fine with
    > this landing in 6.10.

    Now applied as 6.10 material, thanks!

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2024-05-27 16:12    [W:3.588 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site