[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E883406510E@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 07:52:12 +0000
From: "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"sboyd@...eaurora.org" <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken big-endian 64bit platforms
using 'global_lock'
Hi,
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@...ysocki.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:57 AM
>
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 02:04:58 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > global_lock is defined as an unsigned long and accessing only its lower
> > 32 bits from sysfs is incorrect, as we need to consider other 32 bits
> > for big endian 64 bit systems.
> >
> > Fix that by making global_lock an u32 instead.
> >
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # v4.1+
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> >
> > ---
> > Its marked just for # v4.1+, because arm64 has the first 64 big-endian
> > platform with ACPI. And ACPI support for that is mainlined recently
> > only (Arnd Bergmann).
>
> OK
>
> So are you aware of any ARM platform implementing the ACPI EC?
>
> I am not. Moreover, I'm not aware of any plans in that area.
>
> > Another thing worth noticing is that, global_lock is getting an unsigned
> > long long value assigned to it in ec_parse_device() and this is what
> > Arnd had to say about that:
> >
> > "I think that's fine, it does this because the _GLP variable in ACPI is
> > defined as an u64. And that's what happens on 32-bit architectures
> > anyway."
> >
> > This patch should go via GregKH, as the second patch has dependency on
> > it.
> >
> > V2->V3:
> > - Moved this out in a separate patch, so that it can be backported.
>
> Lv, can you have a look at this, please?
>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/ec_sys.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/acpi/internal.h | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/ec_sys.c b/drivers/acpi/ec_sys.c
> > index b4c216bab22b..bea8e425a8de 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/ec_sys.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/ec_sys.c
> > @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int acpi_ec_add_debugfs(struct acpi_ec *ec, unsigned int ec_device_count)
> > if (!debugfs_create_x32("gpe", 0444, dev_dir, (u32 *)&first_ec->gpe))
> > goto error;
> > if (!debugfs_create_bool("use_global_lock", 0444, dev_dir,
> > - (u32 *)&first_ec->global_lock))
> > + &first_ec->global_lock))
> > goto error;
> >
> > if (write_support)
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/internal.h b/drivers/acpi/internal.h
> > index 9e426210c2a8..9db196de003c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/internal.h
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/internal.h
> > @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ struct acpi_ec {
> > unsigned long gpe;
> > unsigned long command_addr;
> > unsigned long data_addr;
> > - unsigned long global_lock;
> > + u32 global_lock;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > unsigned long reference_count;
> > struct mutex mutex;
> >
>
If we really want to change, we may change everything here.
gpe/command_addr/data_addr/global_lock.
And IMO, if we really want to change global_lock, we should make it bool here.
Thanks and best regards
-Lv
> Thanks,
> Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists