| Message ID | 1408622934.3315.8.camel@rzhang1-toshiba (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 08:08:54 PM Zhang Rui wrote: > Hi, Rafael, > > On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 06:04 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > > We generally don't allow ACPI drivers to bind to ACPI device objects > > that companion "physical" device objects are created for to avoid > > situations in which two different drivers may attempt to handle one > > device at the same time. > > Yes, and I think we should not break this rule. No, we broke the way the code worked previously. We need to restore it first and *then* try to fix it up, not the other way around. > > Recent ACPI device enumeration rework > > extended that approach to ACPI PNP devices by starting to use a scan > > handler for enumerating them. However, we previously allowed ACPI > > drivers to bind to ACPI device objects with existing PNP device > > companions and changing that led to functional regressions on some > > systems. > > > Question: except the PNP0C01/PNP0C02 case, if we have an device have two > ids that matches two different drivers, should we allow both drivers > probe successfully? No, we shouldn't, but in the cases in question we have only one driver (an ACPI one). > I think the answer is no. > In the PNP0C01/PNP0C02 case, I think we can fix the issue by the > following patch instead. The right answer to me is to get rid of ACPI drviers entirely. The thing below adds complexity to the resources management which I'm not sure is necessary. In any case, please let's do that on top of the $subject patch not instead of it, because there are more cases we need to cover. And we need a fix for -stable. Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 08:08:54 PM Zhang Rui wrote: > Hi, Rafael, > > On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 06:04 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> [cut] > Note that I've just tested on my machine and it works well. > I still need the bug reporter to check if the patch fixes bug 81511 or not. The FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 devices in bug 81971 have the same problem and they aren't motherboard devices. Yes, we need to convert that driver to use a PNP driver structure or a platform device, but (1) we need a -stable fix *first* and (2) the cases we already know about may not be the only broken ones. > From c6c388728d08a6368f21dab61d6f0a940e0ea13a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:39:47 +0800 > Subject: [RFC PATCH] ACPI: introduce motherboard resource management > > ACPI Devices with _HID/_CID PNP0C01/PNP0C02 represents that > they have some motherboard resources that needs to be reserved. > > We used to enumerated those devices to PNP bus and rely on > PNP system driver to do resource reservation. > But this mechanism does not work well nowadays as many devices > not only represent motherboard resources, but also represent > physical devices that need native drivers other than PNP system > driver for the device to work. For example, > 1) https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46741, > Device (NIPM) > { > Name (_HID, EisaId ("IPI0001")) // _HID: Hardware ID > Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0C01")) // _CID: Compatible ID > the NIPM device has _CID PNP0C01 but it is an IPMI device. > PNP system driver blocks the PNP IPMI driver to probe. That is a good reason for PNP0C01 to be dropped from acpi_pnp_device_ids[]. > 2) https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81511 > Device (IFFS) > { > Name (_HID, EisaId ("INT3392")) // _HID: Hardware ID > Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0C02")) // _CID: Compatible ID > the IFFS device has _CID PNP0C02, but it is an intel rapid start > device, which already has an ACPI driver at > drivers/platform/x86/intel-rst.c And which should be a platform driver really. > 3) a couple of machines, including the on in > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81511, has the AML code > like following > Device (PTID) > { > Name (_HID, EisaId ("INT340E")) // _HID: Hardware ID > Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0C02")) // _CID: Compatible ID > the PTID device has _CID PNP0C02, but it is also represents an > INT340E device, there is a platform bus driver for this device > which will be introduced by myself soon. Again, that's a good reason for dropping PNP0C02 from acpi_pnp_device_ids[]. > In any of the above cases, the current code for managing PNP0C01/PNP0C02 > resources in Linux kernel is broken, because it either blocks the physical > device driver on the same bus, or results in multiple drivers loaded for > the same ACPI device node, which may also has some potential risks. > > Thus, IMO, we need a clean way to handle those motherboard resources. > Given that PNP0C01/PNP0C02 is more like an indicator for reserving the > resources, this patch > 1. does the resource reservation in ACPI code directly, with the same logic > and time point in drivers/pnp/quirks.c and drivers/pnp/system.c. > 2. makes PNP0C01/PNP0C02 PNP id transparent to Linux devices and drivers, > thus PNP system driver becomes a no-op for ACPI enumerated devices. > > This is just a draft patch, and I'd like to see if this is > the right direction to go. Any comments are welcome. > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > --- > drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c | 3 - > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 208 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 204 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c > index 1f8b204..a7deae5 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c > @@ -134,9 +134,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_pnp_device_ids[] = { > {"FUJ02bf"}, > {"FUJ02B1"}, > {"FUJ02E3"}, > - /* system */ > - {"PNP0c02"}, /* General ID for reserving resources */ > - {"PNP0c01"}, /* memory controller */ > /* rtc_cmos */ > {"PNP0b00"}, > {"PNP0b01"}, > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > index 0a817ad..674518b 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ > #include <linux/kthread.h> > #include <linux/dmi.h> > #include <linux/nls.h> > +#include <linux/pci.h> > > #include <asm/pgtable.h> > > @@ -1781,12 +1782,201 @@ static bool acpi_object_is_system_bus(acpi_handle handle) > return false; > } > > +static bool acpi_is_motherboard_resource(char *id) > +{ > + return !(strncmp(id, "PNP0C01", sizeof("PNP0C01")) && > + strncmp(id, "PNP0C02", sizeof("PNP0C02"))); > +} Can we use __acpi_match_device() for that? > + > +static LIST_HEAD(acpi_motherboard_resource_list); > + > +struct acpi_motherboard_resource { > + acpi_handle handle; > + struct list_head node; > +}; > + > +static void acpi_record_motherboard_resource(acpi_handle handle) > +{ > + struct acpi_motherboard_resource *res; > + > + res = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_motherboard_resource), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!res) > + return; > + res->handle = handle; > + list_add(&res->node, &acpi_motherboard_resource_list); > +} > + > +static void reserve_range(struct acpi_device *device, struct resource *r, int port) > +{ > + char *regionid; > + resource_size_t start = r->start, end = r->end; > + struct resource *res; > + int result; > + > + regionid = kmalloc(20, GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!regionid) > + return; > + > + snprintf(regionid, 20, "ACPI %s", dev_name(&device->dev)); > + > + if (port) > + res = request_region(start, end - start + 1, regionid); > + else > + res = request_mem_region(start, end - start + 1, regionid); > + if (res) > + res->flags &= ~IORESOURCE_BUSY; > + else > + kfree(regionid); > + > + dev_info(&device->dev, "%pR %s reserved\n", r, > + res ? "has been" : "could not be"); > +} > + The routine below should go into the PCI core. > +static int is_pci_reserved(struct resource *res) > +{ > + struct pci_dev *pdev = NULL; > + resource_size_t acpi_start, acpi_end, pci_start, pci_end; > + int i; > + > + /* > + * Some BIOSes have motherboard devices with resources that > + * partially overlap PCI BARs. > + * Those resources should not be reserved, or else, it will > + * prevent the normal PCI driver from requesting them later. > + */ > + for_each_pci_dev(pdev) { > + for (i = 0; i < DEVICE_COUNT_RESOURCE; i++) { > + unsigned long type; > + > + type = pci_resource_flags(pdev, i) & res->flags > + & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM); > + if (!type || pci_resource_len(pdev, i) == 0) > + continue; > + > + pci_start = pci_resource_start(pdev, i); > + pci_end = pci_resource_end(pdev, i); > + > + if (res->start == 0 && res->end == 0) > + continue; > + > + acpi_start = res->start; > + acpi_end = res->end; > + > + /* > + * If the ACPI region doesn't overlap the PCI > + * region at all, there's no problem. > + */ > + if (acpi_end < pci_start || acpi_start > pci_end) > + continue; > + > + /* > + * If the PNP region completely encloses (or is > + * at least as large as) the PCI region, that's > + * also OK. For example, this happens when the > + * PNP device describes a bridge with PCI > + * behind it. > + */ > + if (acpi_start <= pci_start && acpi_end >= pci_end) > + continue; > + > + /* > + * Otherwise, the ACPI region overlaps *part* of > + * the PCI region, and that might prevent a PCI > + * driver from requesting its resources. > + */ > + return true; > + } > + } > + return false; > +} > + The routine below should go into resource.c. > +static acpi_status __init __acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource(struct acpi_resource *res, > + void *data) > +{ > + struct resource r = {0}; > + acpi_handle handle = data; > + struct acpi_device *device; > + int result; > + > + result = acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device); > + if (result) > + return AE_OK; > + > + if (!device->status.present) > + return AE_OK; > + > + switch (res->type) { > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_MEMORY24: > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_MEMORY32: > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32: > + if (!acpi_dev_resource_memory(res, &r)) > + return AE_OK; > + break; > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_IO: > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_IO: > + if (!acpi_dev_resource_io(res, &r)) > + return AE_OK; > + break; > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESS16: > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESS32: > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESS64: > + if (!acpi_dev_resource_address_space(res, &r)) > + return AE_OK; > + break; > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_EXTENDED_ADDRESS64: > + if (!acpi_dev_resource_ext_address_space(res, &r)) > + return AE_OK; > + break; > + default: > + return AE_OK; > + } > + > + if (r.flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED) > + return AE_OK; > + > + if (is_pci_reserved(&r)) > + return AE_OK; > + > + if (r.flags & IORESOURCE_IO) { > + if (r.start < 0x100) > + /* > + * Below 0x100 is only standard PC hardware > + * (pics, kbd, timer, dma, ...) > + * We should not get resource conflicts there, > + * and the kernel reserves these anyway > + * (see arch/i386/kernel/setup.c). > + * So, do nothing > + */ > + return AE_OK; > + if (r.end < r.start) > + return AE_OK; /* invalid */ > + reserve_range(device, &r, 1); > + } else if (r.flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) { > + reserve_range(device, &r, 0); > + } > + > + return AE_OK; > +} > + > +static int __init acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource(void) > +{ > + struct acpi_motherboard_resource *res; > + > + list_for_each_entry(res, &acpi_motherboard_resource_list, node) > + acpi_walk_resources(res->handle, METHOD_NAME__CRS, > + __acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource, res->handle); > + > + return 0; > +} > +fs_initcall(acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource); Why don't we call that directly from acpi_scan_init() and do we need the acpi_motherboard_resource_list list to be present any more after calling this function? > + > static void acpi_set_pnp_ids(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, > int device_type) > { > acpi_status status; > struct acpi_device_info *info; > struct acpi_pnp_device_id_list *cid_list; > + int is_mb_resource = 0; > int i; > > switch (device_type) { > @@ -1804,13 +1994,20 @@ static void acpi_set_pnp_ids(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, > } > > if (info->valid & ACPI_VALID_HID) { > - acpi_add_id(pnp, info->hardware_id.string); > - pnp->type.platform_id = 1; > + if (!acpi_is_motherboard_resource(info->hardware_id.string)) { I would reverse the check. That is, do if (!acpi_is_motherboard_resource(info->hardware_id.string)) { is_mb_resource = 1; } else { ... Also, don't we really want to create platform devices for the ACPI device objects in question? > + acpi_add_id(pnp, info->hardware_id.string); > + pnp->type.platform_id = 1; > + } else > + is_mb_resource = 1; > } > if (info->valid & ACPI_VALID_CID) { > cid_list = &info->compatible_id_list; > - for (i = 0; i < cid_list->count; i++) > - acpi_add_id(pnp, cid_list->ids[i].string); > + for (i = 0; i < cid_list->count; i++) { > + if (!acpi_is_motherboard_resource(cid_list->ids[i].string)) > + acpi_add_id(pnp, cid_list->ids[i].string); > + else > + is_mb_resource = 1; > + } > } > if (info->valid & ACPI_VALID_ADR) { > pnp->bus_address = info->address; > @@ -1822,6 +2019,9 @@ static void acpi_set_pnp_ids(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, > > kfree(info); > > + if (is_mb_resource) > + acpi_record_motherboard_resource(handle); > + > /* > * Some devices don't reliably have _HIDs & _CIDs, so add > * synthetic HIDs to make sure drivers can find them. > Overall, it looks reasonable, but it can't be a replacement for the $subject patch. I also should mention that I don't want the special case for PNP devices to stay there forever, but in my opinion we do need it at the moment for a couple of reasons. Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 19:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, August 21, 2014 08:08:54 PM Zhang Rui wrote: > > Hi, Rafael, > > > > On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 06:04 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > [cut] > > > Note that I've just tested on my machine and it works well. > > I still need the bug reporter to check if the patch fixes bug 81511 or not. > > The FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 devices in bug 81971 have the same problem and > they aren't motherboard devices. Right, but IMO, the rootcause of that bug is that 1. the PNP id table in fujitsu-laptop driver was introduced for some reason, probably it is used as an indicator for module auto-loading, and nowadays, this is redundant because fujitsu-laptop driver probes ACPI device only, and the driver will be loaded if the ACPI device objects for FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 is created. 2. This "redundant" PNP id table results in that those IDs are added to PNP ID list unnecessarily, and results in PNP device nodes for those devices are created unnecessarily. > Yes, we need to convert that driver > to use a PNP driver structure or a platform device, but (1) we need a > -stable fix *first* I agree. > and (2) the cases we already know about may not be > the only broken ones. Agree. But the issue addressed in your patch is that PNP scan handler blocks ACPI driver from being probed, right? So my question would be, 1. If the id in PNP scan handler does not have a PNP driver, like the FUJ02B1/FUJ02E3 issue, what do we need the id in PNP scan handler? In fact, I think this is a good chance for us to cleanup the ACPI PNP id list, as long as we can fix them in time. 2. If the id in PNP scan handler has a PNP driver, should we allow both PNP driver and ACPI driver loaded? I think PNP system driver is the only case that makes us have to say yes, and what I'm trying to do is to fix this in the following patch. Plus, IMO, your patch only fixes the PNP bus vs. ACPI bus issue. We still may get bug report complaining some *PLATFORM* driver stops to functional if the ACPI node has _CID PNP0C01/PNP0C02, sooner or later. right? thanks, rui > > > From c6c388728d08a6368f21dab61d6f0a940e0ea13a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > > Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:39:47 +0800 > > Subject: [RFC PATCH] ACPI: introduce motherboard resource management > > > > ACPI Devices with _HID/_CID PNP0C01/PNP0C02 represents that > > they have some motherboard resources that needs to be reserved. > > > > We used to enumerated those devices to PNP bus and rely on > > PNP system driver to do resource reservation. > > But this mechanism does not work well nowadays as many devices > > not only represent motherboard resources, but also represent > > physical devices that need native drivers other than PNP system > > driver for the device to work. For example, > > 1) https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46741, > > Device (NIPM) > > { > > Name (_HID, EisaId ("IPI0001")) // _HID: Hardware ID > > Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0C01")) // _CID: Compatible ID > > the NIPM device has _CID PNP0C01 but it is an IPMI device. > > PNP system driver blocks the PNP IPMI driver to probe. > > That is a good reason for PNP0C01 to be dropped from acpi_pnp_device_ids[]. > > > 2) https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81511 > > Device (IFFS) > > { > > Name (_HID, EisaId ("INT3392")) // _HID: Hardware ID > > Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0C02")) // _CID: Compatible ID > > the IFFS device has _CID PNP0C02, but it is an intel rapid start > > device, which already has an ACPI driver at > > drivers/platform/x86/intel-rst.c > > And which should be a platform driver really. > > > 3) a couple of machines, including the on in > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81511, has the AML code > > like following > > Device (PTID) > > { > > Name (_HID, EisaId ("INT340E")) // _HID: Hardware ID > > Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0C02")) // _CID: Compatible ID > > the PTID device has _CID PNP0C02, but it is also represents an > > INT340E device, there is a platform bus driver for this device > > which will be introduced by myself soon. > > Again, that's a good reason for dropping PNP0C02 from acpi_pnp_device_ids[]. > > > In any of the above cases, the current code for managing PNP0C01/PNP0C02 > > resources in Linux kernel is broken, because it either blocks the physical > > device driver on the same bus, or results in multiple drivers loaded for > > the same ACPI device node, which may also has some potential risks. > > > > Thus, IMO, we need a clean way to handle those motherboard resources. > > Given that PNP0C01/PNP0C02 is more like an indicator for reserving the > > resources, this patch > > 1. does the resource reservation in ACPI code directly, with the same logic > > and time point in drivers/pnp/quirks.c and drivers/pnp/system.c. > > 2. makes PNP0C01/PNP0C02 PNP id transparent to Linux devices and drivers, > > thus PNP system driver becomes a no-op for ACPI enumerated devices. > > > > This is just a draft patch, and I'd like to see if this is > > the right direction to go. Any comments are welcome. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c | 3 - > > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 208 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > 2 files changed, 204 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c > > index 1f8b204..a7deae5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c > > @@ -134,9 +134,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_pnp_device_ids[] = { > > {"FUJ02bf"}, > > {"FUJ02B1"}, > > {"FUJ02E3"}, > > - /* system */ > > - {"PNP0c02"}, /* General ID for reserving resources */ > > - {"PNP0c01"}, /* memory controller */ > > /* rtc_cmos */ > > {"PNP0b00"}, > > {"PNP0b01"}, > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > index 0a817ad..674518b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ > > #include <linux/kthread.h> > > #include <linux/dmi.h> > > #include <linux/nls.h> > > +#include <linux/pci.h> > > > > #include <asm/pgtable.h> > > > > @@ -1781,12 +1782,201 @@ static bool acpi_object_is_system_bus(acpi_handle handle) > > return false; > > } > > > > +static bool acpi_is_motherboard_resource(char *id) > > +{ > > + return !(strncmp(id, "PNP0C01", sizeof("PNP0C01")) && > > + strncmp(id, "PNP0C02", sizeof("PNP0C02"))); > > +} > > Can we use __acpi_match_device() for that? > > > + > > +static LIST_HEAD(acpi_motherboard_resource_list); > > + > > +struct acpi_motherboard_resource { > > + acpi_handle handle; > > + struct list_head node; > > +}; > > + > > +static void acpi_record_motherboard_resource(acpi_handle handle) > > +{ > > + struct acpi_motherboard_resource *res; > > + > > + res = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_motherboard_resource), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!res) > > + return; > > + res->handle = handle; > > + list_add(&res->node, &acpi_motherboard_resource_list); > > +} > > + > > +static void reserve_range(struct acpi_device *device, struct resource *r, int port) > > +{ > > + char *regionid; > > + resource_size_t start = r->start, end = r->end; > > + struct resource *res; > > + int result; > > + > > + regionid = kmalloc(20, GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!regionid) > > + return; > > + > > + snprintf(regionid, 20, "ACPI %s", dev_name(&device->dev)); > > + > > + if (port) > > + res = request_region(start, end - start + 1, regionid); > > + else > > + res = request_mem_region(start, end - start + 1, regionid); > > + if (res) > > + res->flags &= ~IORESOURCE_BUSY; > > + else > > + kfree(regionid); > > + > > + dev_info(&device->dev, "%pR %s reserved\n", r, > > + res ? "has been" : "could not be"); > > +} > > + > > The routine below should go into the PCI core. > > > +static int is_pci_reserved(struct resource *res) > > +{ > > + struct pci_dev *pdev = NULL; > > + resource_size_t acpi_start, acpi_end, pci_start, pci_end; > > + int i; > > + > > + /* > > + * Some BIOSes have motherboard devices with resources that > > + * partially overlap PCI BARs. > > + * Those resources should not be reserved, or else, it will > > + * prevent the normal PCI driver from requesting them later. > > + */ > > + for_each_pci_dev(pdev) { > > + for (i = 0; i < DEVICE_COUNT_RESOURCE; i++) { > > + unsigned long type; > > + > > + type = pci_resource_flags(pdev, i) & res->flags > > + & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM); > > + if (!type || pci_resource_len(pdev, i) == 0) > > + continue; > > + > > + pci_start = pci_resource_start(pdev, i); > > + pci_end = pci_resource_end(pdev, i); > > + > > + if (res->start == 0 && res->end == 0) > > + continue; > > + > > + acpi_start = res->start; > > + acpi_end = res->end; > > + > > + /* > > + * If the ACPI region doesn't overlap the PCI > > + * region at all, there's no problem. > > + */ > > + if (acpi_end < pci_start || acpi_start > pci_end) > > + continue; > > + > > + /* > > + * If the PNP region completely encloses (or is > > + * at least as large as) the PCI region, that's > > + * also OK. For example, this happens when the > > + * PNP device describes a bridge with PCI > > + * behind it. > > + */ > > + if (acpi_start <= pci_start && acpi_end >= pci_end) > > + continue; > > + > > + /* > > + * Otherwise, the ACPI region overlaps *part* of > > + * the PCI region, and that might prevent a PCI > > + * driver from requesting its resources. > > + */ > > + return true; > > + } > > + } > > + return false; > > +} > > + > > The routine below should go into resource.c. > > > +static acpi_status __init __acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource(struct acpi_resource *res, > > + void *data) > > +{ > > + struct resource r = {0}; > > + acpi_handle handle = data; > > + struct acpi_device *device; > > + int result; > > + > > + result = acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device); > > + if (result) > > + return AE_OK; > > + > > + if (!device->status.present) > > + return AE_OK; > > + > > + switch (res->type) { > > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_MEMORY24: > > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_MEMORY32: > > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32: > > + if (!acpi_dev_resource_memory(res, &r)) > > + return AE_OK; > > + break; > > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_IO: > > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_IO: > > + if (!acpi_dev_resource_io(res, &r)) > > + return AE_OK; > > + break; > > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESS16: > > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESS32: > > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESS64: > > + if (!acpi_dev_resource_address_space(res, &r)) > > + return AE_OK; > > + break; > > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_EXTENDED_ADDRESS64: > > + if (!acpi_dev_resource_ext_address_space(res, &r)) > > + return AE_OK; > > + break; > > + default: > > + return AE_OK; > > + } > > + > > + if (r.flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED) > > + return AE_OK; > > + > > + if (is_pci_reserved(&r)) > > + return AE_OK; > > + > > + if (r.flags & IORESOURCE_IO) { > > + if (r.start < 0x100) > > + /* > > + * Below 0x100 is only standard PC hardware > > + * (pics, kbd, timer, dma, ...) > > + * We should not get resource conflicts there, > > + * and the kernel reserves these anyway > > + * (see arch/i386/kernel/setup.c). > > + * So, do nothing > > + */ > > + return AE_OK; > > + if (r.end < r.start) > > + return AE_OK; /* invalid */ > > + reserve_range(device, &r, 1); > > + } else if (r.flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) { > > + reserve_range(device, &r, 0); > > + } > > + > > + return AE_OK; > > +} > > + > > +static int __init acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource(void) > > +{ > > + struct acpi_motherboard_resource *res; > > + > > + list_for_each_entry(res, &acpi_motherboard_resource_list, node) > > + acpi_walk_resources(res->handle, METHOD_NAME__CRS, > > + __acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource, res->handle); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > +fs_initcall(acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource); > > Why don't we call that directly from acpi_scan_init() and do we need the > acpi_motherboard_resource_list list to be present any more after calling > this function? > > > + > > static void acpi_set_pnp_ids(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, > > int device_type) > > { > > acpi_status status; > > struct acpi_device_info *info; > > struct acpi_pnp_device_id_list *cid_list; > > + int is_mb_resource = 0; > > int i; > > > > switch (device_type) { > > @@ -1804,13 +1994,20 @@ static void acpi_set_pnp_ids(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, > > } > > > > if (info->valid & ACPI_VALID_HID) { > > - acpi_add_id(pnp, info->hardware_id.string); > > - pnp->type.platform_id = 1; > > + if (!acpi_is_motherboard_resource(info->hardware_id.string)) { > > I would reverse the check. That is, do > > if (!acpi_is_motherboard_resource(info->hardware_id.string)) { > is_mb_resource = 1; > } else { ... > > Also, don't we really want to create platform devices for the ACPI device objects > in question? > > > + acpi_add_id(pnp, info->hardware_id.string); > > + pnp->type.platform_id = 1; > > + } else > > + is_mb_resource = 1; > > } > > if (info->valid & ACPI_VALID_CID) { > > cid_list = &info->compatible_id_list; > > - for (i = 0; i < cid_list->count; i++) > > - acpi_add_id(pnp, cid_list->ids[i].string); > > + for (i = 0; i < cid_list->count; i++) { > > + if (!acpi_is_motherboard_resource(cid_list->ids[i].string)) > > + acpi_add_id(pnp, cid_list->ids[i].string); > > + else > > + is_mb_resource = 1; > > + } > > } > > if (info->valid & ACPI_VALID_ADR) { > > pnp->bus_address = info->address; > > @@ -1822,6 +2019,9 @@ static void acpi_set_pnp_ids(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, > > > > kfree(info); > > > > + if (is_mb_resource) > > + acpi_record_motherboard_resource(handle); > > + > > /* > > * Some devices don't reliably have _HIDs & _CIDs, so add > > * synthetic HIDs to make sure drivers can find them. > > > > Overall, it looks reasonable, but it can't be a replacement for the $subject > patch. > > I also should mention that I don't want the special case for PNP devices to > stay there forever, but in my opinion we do need it at the moment for a couple > of reasons. > > Rafael > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Friday, August 22, 2014 10:00:31 AM Zhang Rui wrote: > On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 19:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, August 21, 2014 08:08:54 PM Zhang Rui wrote: > > > Hi, Rafael, > > > > > > On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 06:04 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > > [cut] > > > > > Note that I've just tested on my machine and it works well. > > > I still need the bug reporter to check if the patch fixes bug 81511 or not. > > > > The FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 devices in bug 81971 have the same problem and > > they aren't motherboard devices. > > Right, but IMO, the rootcause of that bug is that > 1. the PNP id table in fujitsu-laptop driver was introduced for some > reason, probably it is used as an indicator for module auto-loading, and > nowadays, this is redundant because fujitsu-laptop driver probes ACPI > device only, and the driver will be loaded if the ACPI device objects > for FUJ02B1 and FUJ02E3 is created. We may be able to drop the Fujitsu devices from the ACPI PNP list and all may work. Still, does that fix all of the potential problems? > 2. This "redundant" PNP id table results in that those IDs are added to > PNP ID list unnecessarily, and results in PNP device nodes for those > devices are created unnecessarily. Yes, that may be the case, but the way to deal with that is not to break thing and then see what's broken and fix it, but to get rid of ACPI drivers one by one in which case we can control what's been changed and why. > > Yes, we need to convert that driver > > to use a PNP driver structure or a platform device, but (1) we need a > > -stable fix *first* > > I agree. > > > and (2) the cases we already know about may not be > > the only broken ones. > > Agree. > But the issue addressed in your patch is that PNP scan handler blocks > ACPI driver from being probed, right? Yes. > So my question would be, > 1. If the id in PNP scan handler does not have a PNP driver, like the > FUJ02B1/FUJ02E3 issue, what do we need the id in PNP scan handler? > In fact, I think this is a good chance for us to cleanup the ACPI PNP > id list, as long as we can fix them in time. No. We need -stable to work and there's no way I will mark the motherboard resource changes for -stable. Second, if we deal with it as I said (that is, get rid of ACPI drivers gradually), we will clean up that list in the process without breaking things for people in random ways. > 2. If the id in PNP scan handler has a PNP driver, should we allow both > PNP driver and ACPI driver loaded? I think PNP system driver is the > only case that makes us have to say yes, and what I'm trying to do > is to fix this in the following patch. > > Plus, IMO, your patch only fixes the PNP bus vs. ACPI bus issue. We > still may get bug report complaining some *PLATFORM* driver stops to > functional if the ACPI node has _CID PNP0C01/PNP0C02, sooner or later. > right? No. We never allowed ACPI drivers to bind to ACPI device objects having platform device companions, wherease we *did* allow that for ACPI device objects having PNP device companions. We simply need to go back to what we were doing and fix things *on* *top* of that. Any other approach pretty much guarantees leaving breakage in random places. So I'm fine with cleaning up the PNP list *if* you convert the drivers in question from ACPI drivers to something else (platform drivers preferably) at the same time. Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c index 1f8b204..a7deae5 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_pnp.c @@ -134,9 +134,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_pnp_device_ids[] = { {"FUJ02bf"}, {"FUJ02B1"}, {"FUJ02E3"}, - /* system */ - {"PNP0c02"}, /* General ID for reserving resources */ - {"PNP0c01"}, /* memory controller */ /* rtc_cmos */ {"PNP0b00"}, {"PNP0b01"}, diff --git a/drivers/acpi/scan.c b/drivers/acpi/scan.c index 0a817ad..674518b 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/scan.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/scan.c @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ #include <linux/kthread.h> #include <linux/dmi.h> #include <linux/nls.h> +#include <linux/pci.h> #include <asm/pgtable.h> @@ -1781,12 +1782,201 @@ static bool acpi_object_is_system_bus(acpi_handle handle) return false; } +static bool acpi_is_motherboard_resource(char *id) +{ + return !(strncmp(id, "PNP0C01", sizeof("PNP0C01")) && + strncmp(id, "PNP0C02", sizeof("PNP0C02"))); +} + +static LIST_HEAD(acpi_motherboard_resource_list); + +struct acpi_motherboard_resource { + acpi_handle handle; + struct list_head node; +}; + +static void acpi_record_motherboard_resource(acpi_handle handle) +{ + struct acpi_motherboard_resource *res; + + res = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_motherboard_resource), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!res) + return; + res->handle = handle; + list_add(&res->node, &acpi_motherboard_resource_list); +} + +static void reserve_range(struct acpi_device *device, struct resource *r, int port) +{ + char *regionid; + resource_size_t start = r->start, end = r->end; + struct resource *res; + int result; + + regionid = kmalloc(20, GFP_KERNEL); + if (!regionid) + return; + + snprintf(regionid, 20, "ACPI %s", dev_name(&device->dev)); + + if (port) + res = request_region(start, end - start + 1, regionid); + else + res = request_mem_region(start, end - start + 1, regionid); + if (res) + res->flags &= ~IORESOURCE_BUSY; + else + kfree(regionid); + + dev_info(&device->dev, "%pR %s reserved\n", r, + res ? "has been" : "could not be"); +} + +static int is_pci_reserved(struct resource *res) +{ + struct pci_dev *pdev = NULL; + resource_size_t acpi_start, acpi_end, pci_start, pci_end; + int i; + + /* + * Some BIOSes have motherboard devices with resources that + * partially overlap PCI BARs. + * Those resources should not be reserved, or else, it will + * prevent the normal PCI driver from requesting them later. + */ + for_each_pci_dev(pdev) { + for (i = 0; i < DEVICE_COUNT_RESOURCE; i++) { + unsigned long type; + + type = pci_resource_flags(pdev, i) & res->flags + & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM); + if (!type || pci_resource_len(pdev, i) == 0) + continue; + + pci_start = pci_resource_start(pdev, i); + pci_end = pci_resource_end(pdev, i); + + if (res->start == 0 && res->end == 0) + continue; + + acpi_start = res->start; + acpi_end = res->end; + + /* + * If the ACPI region doesn't overlap the PCI + * region at all, there's no problem. + */ + if (acpi_end < pci_start || acpi_start > pci_end) + continue; + + /* + * If the PNP region completely encloses (or is + * at least as large as) the PCI region, that's + * also OK. For example, this happens when the + * PNP device describes a bridge with PCI + * behind it. + */ + if (acpi_start <= pci_start && acpi_end >= pci_end) + continue; + + /* + * Otherwise, the ACPI region overlaps *part* of + * the PCI region, and that might prevent a PCI + * driver from requesting its resources. + */ + return true; + } + } + return false; +} + +static acpi_status __init __acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource(struct acpi_resource *res, + void *data) +{ + struct resource r = {0}; + acpi_handle handle = data; + struct acpi_device *device; + int result; + + result = acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device); + if (result) + return AE_OK; + + if (!device->status.present) + return AE_OK; + + switch (res->type) { + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_MEMORY24: + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_MEMORY32: + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32: + if (!acpi_dev_resource_memory(res, &r)) + return AE_OK; + break; + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_IO: + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_IO: + if (!acpi_dev_resource_io(res, &r)) + return AE_OK; + break; + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESS16: + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESS32: + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESS64: + if (!acpi_dev_resource_address_space(res, &r)) + return AE_OK; + break; + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_EXTENDED_ADDRESS64: + if (!acpi_dev_resource_ext_address_space(res, &r)) + return AE_OK; + break; + default: + return AE_OK; + } + + if (r.flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED) + return AE_OK; + + if (is_pci_reserved(&r)) + return AE_OK; + + if (r.flags & IORESOURCE_IO) { + if (r.start < 0x100) + /* + * Below 0x100 is only standard PC hardware + * (pics, kbd, timer, dma, ...) + * We should not get resource conflicts there, + * and the kernel reserves these anyway + * (see arch/i386/kernel/setup.c). + * So, do nothing + */ + return AE_OK; + if (r.end < r.start) + return AE_OK; /* invalid */ + reserve_range(device, &r, 1); + } else if (r.flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) { + reserve_range(device, &r, 0); + } + + return AE_OK; +} + +static int __init acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource(void) +{ + struct acpi_motherboard_resource *res; + + list_for_each_entry(res, &acpi_motherboard_resource_list, node) + acpi_walk_resources(res->handle, METHOD_NAME__CRS, + __acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource, res->handle); + + return 0; +} +fs_initcall(acpi_reserve_motherboard_resource); + static void acpi_set_pnp_ids(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, int device_type) { acpi_status status; struct acpi_device_info *info; struct acpi_pnp_device_id_list *cid_list; + int is_mb_resource = 0; int i; switch (device_type) { @@ -1804,13 +1994,20 @@ static void acpi_set_pnp_ids(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, } if (info->valid & ACPI_VALID_HID) { - acpi_add_id(pnp, info->hardware_id.string); - pnp->type.platform_id = 1; + if (!acpi_is_motherboard_resource(info->hardware_id.string)) { + acpi_add_id(pnp, info->hardware_id.string); + pnp->type.platform_id = 1; + } else + is_mb_resource = 1; } if (info->valid & ACPI_VALID_CID) { cid_list = &info->compatible_id_list; - for (i = 0; i < cid_list->count; i++) - acpi_add_id(pnp, cid_list->ids[i].string); + for (i = 0; i < cid_list->count; i++) { + if (!acpi_is_motherboard_resource(cid_list->ids[i].string)) + acpi_add_id(pnp, cid_list->ids[i].string); + else + is_mb_resource = 1; + } } if (info->valid & ACPI_VALID_ADR) { pnp->bus_address = info->address; @@ -1822,6 +2019,9 @@ static void acpi_set_pnp_ids(acpi_handle handle, struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp, kfree(info); + if (is_mb_resource) + acpi_record_motherboard_resource(handle); + /* * Some devices don't reliably have _HIDs & _CIDs, so add * synthetic HIDs to make sure drivers can find them.