Message-ID: <0cdf0af6-851b-4781-83fe-99320c35544f@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 12:40:05 -0500
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
 Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
 Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, LKML
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
 Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ACPI: EC: Install address space handler at the
 namespace root

On 5/10/2024 12:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:52:41PM +0200, Armin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 10.05.24 um 18:41 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 6:10 PM Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de> wrote:
>>>> Am 10.05.24 um 16:03 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is reported that _DSM evaluation fails in ucsi_acpi_dsm() on Lenovo
>>>>> IdeaPad Pro 5 due to a missing address space handler for the EC address
>>>>> space:
>>>>>
>>>>>     ACPI Error: No handler for Region [ECSI] (000000007b8176ee) [EmbeddedControl] (20230628/evregion-130)
>>>>>
>>>>> This happens because the EC driver only registers the EC address space
>>>>> handler for operation regions defined in the EC device scope of the
>>>>> ACPI namespace while the operation region being accessed by the _DSM
>>>>> in question is located beyond that scope.
>>>>>
>>>>> To address this, modify the ACPI EC driver to install the EC address
>>>>> space handler at the root of the ACPI namespace.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that this change is consistent with some examples in the ACPI
>>>>> specification in which EC operation regions located outside the EC
>>>>> device scope are used (for example, see Section 9.17.15 in ACPI 6.5),
>>>>> so the current behavior of the EC driver is arguably questionable.
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> the patch itself looks good to me, but i wonder what happens if multiple
>>>> ACPI EC devices are present. How would we handle such a situation?
>>> I'm wondering if this is a theoretical question or do you have any
>>> existing or planned systems in mind?
>>>
>>> ec_read(), ec_write() and ec_transaction() use only the first EC that
>>> has been found anyway.
>>
>> Its a theoretical question, i do not know of any systems which have more than
>> one ACPI EC device.
> 
> The specification is clear about this case in the "ACPI Embedded Controller
> Interface Specification":
> 
>   "The ACPI standard supports multiple embedded controllers in a system,
>    each with its own resources. Each embedded controller has a flat
>    byte-addressable I/O space, currently defined as 256 bytes."
> 
> However, I haven't checked deeper, so it might be a leftover in the documentation.
> 
> The OperationRegion() has no reference to the EC (or in general, device) which
> we need to speak to. The only possibility to declare OpRegion() for the second+
> EC is to use vendor specific RegionSpace, AFAIU. So, even if ACPI specification
> supports 2+ ECs, it doesn't support OpRegion():s for them under the same
> RegionSpace.
> 
> That said, the commit message might be extended to summarize this, but at
> the same time I see no way how this series can break anything even in 2+ ECs
> environments.

It's deviating from the patch, but in practice /why/ would you even want 
to have a design with two ECs?  In general that is going to mean a much 
more complex state machine with synchronizing the interaction between 
both of them and the host.

Understanding the benefit of such a design might make it easier to 
hypothesize impacts.

> 
>> This patch would prevent any ACPI ECs other than the first one from probing,
>> since they would fail to register their address space handler.
>> I am just curious if/how we want to handle such situations.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists