lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1392785628-30633-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:53:43 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
	Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
Cc:	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] nouveau, ACPI: fix regression caused by b072e53

On some platforms, ACPI _DSM method (nouveau_op_dsm_muid, function 0)
has special requirements on the fourth parameter, which is different
from ACPI specifications. So revert to the private implementation
to check availability of _DSM functions instead of using common
acpi_check_dsm() interface.

Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
---
Hi Maarten,
	Thanks for bisecting. Could you please help to verify whether
this patch fixes the regression?

Thanks!
Gerry
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c |   26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
index 4ef83df..c6c7d0d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
@@ -106,6 +106,29 @@ static int nouveau_optimus_dsm(acpi_handle handle, int func, int arg, uint32_t *
 	return 0;
 }
 
+/*
+ * On some platforms, _DSM(nouveau_op_dsm_muid, func0) has special
+ * requirements on the fourth parameter, so a private implementation
+ * instead of using acpi_check_dsm().
+ */
+static int nouveau_check_optimus_dsm(acpi_handle handle)
+{
+	int result;
+
+	/*
+	 * Function 0 returns a Buffer containing available functions.
+	 * The args parameter is ignored for function 0, so just put 0 in it
+	 */
+	if (nouveau_optimus_dsm(handle, 0, 0, &result)
+		return 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * ACPI Spec v4 9.14.1: if bit 0 is zero, no function is supported.
+	 * If the n-th bit is enabled, function n is supported
+	 */
+	return result & 1 && result & (1 << NOUVEAU_DSM_OPTIMUS_CAPS);
+}
+
 static int nouveau_dsm(acpi_handle handle, int func, int arg)
 {
 	int ret = 0;
@@ -207,8 +230,7 @@ static int nouveau_dsm_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
 			   1 << NOUVEAU_DSM_POWER))
 		retval |= NOUVEAU_DSM_HAS_MUX;
 
-	if (acpi_check_dsm(dhandle, nouveau_op_dsm_muid, 0x00000100,
-			   1 << NOUVEAU_DSM_OPTIMUS_CAPS))
+	if (nouveau_check_optimus_dsm(dhandle))
 		retval |= NOUVEAU_DSM_HAS_OPT;
 
 	if (retval & NOUVEAU_DSM_HAS_OPT) {
-- 
1.7.10.4

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ