[PATCH 1/2] acpi: method: Add _S0_ .. _S5_, _SWS checks
Keng-Yu Lin
kengyu at canonical.com
Tue Sep 25 06:33:53 UTC 2012
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Colin King <colin.king at canonical.com> wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com>
> ---
> src/acpi/method/method.c | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 122 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/acpi/method/method.c b/src/acpi/method/method.c
> index a460368..1cbbf75 100644
> --- a/src/acpi/method/method.c
> +++ b/src/acpi/method/method.c
> @@ -1274,6 +1274,121 @@ static int method_test_IRC(fwts_framework *fw)
> "_IRC", NULL, 0, method_test_NULL_return, NULL);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Section 7.3 OEM Supplied System-Level Control Methods
> + */
> +static void method_test_Sx__return(
> + fwts_framework *fw,
> + char *name,
> + ACPI_BUFFER *buf,
> + ACPI_OBJECT *obj,
> + void *private)
> +{
> + bool failed = false;
> +
> + if (method_check_type(fw, name, buf, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE) != FWTS_OK)
> + return;
> +
> + /*
> + * The ACPI spec states it should have 1 integer, with the
> + * values packed into each byte. However, nearly all BIOS
> + * vendors don't do this, instead they return a package of
> + * 2 or more integers with each integer lower byte containing
> + * the data we are interested in. The kernel handles this
> + * the non-compliant way. Doh. See drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxface.c
> + * for the kernel implementation and also
> + * source/components/hardware/hwxface.c in the reference ACPICA
> + * sources.
> + */
> +
> + /* Something is really wrong if we don't have any elements in _Sx_ */
> + if (obj->Package.Count < 1) {
> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_HIGH, "Method_SxElementCount",
> + "The kernel expects a package of at least two "
> + "integers, and %s only returned %d elements in "
> + "the package.", name, obj->Package.Count);
> + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Oh dear, BIOS is conforming to the spec but won't work in
> + * Linux
> + */
> + if (obj->Package.Count == 1) {
> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "Method_SxElementCount",
> + "The ACPI specification states that %s should "
> + "return a package of a single integer which "
> + "this firmware does do. However, nearly all of the "
> + "BIOS vendors return the values in the low 8 bits "
> + "in a package of 2 to 4 integers which is not "
> + "compliant with the specification BUT is the way "
> + "that the ACPICA reference engine and the kernel "
> + "expect. So, while this is conforming to the ACPI "
> + "specification it will in fact not work in the "
> + "Linux kernel.", name);
> + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* Yes, we really want integers! */
> + if ((obj->Package.Elements[0].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) ||
> + (obj->Package.Elements[0].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER)) {
> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM,
> + "Method_SxElementType",
> + "%s returned a package that did not contain "
> + "an integer.", name);
> + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (obj->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value & 0xffffff00) {
> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM,
> + "Method_SxElementValue",
> + "%s package element 0 had upper 24 bits "
> + "of bits that were non-zero.", name);
> + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN);
> + failed = true;
> + }
> +
> + if (obj->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value & 0xffffff00) {
> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM,
> + "Method_SxElementValue",
> + "%s package element 1 had upper 24 bits "
> + "of bits that were non-zero.", name);
> + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN);
> + failed = true;
> + }
> +
> + fwts_log_info(fw, "%s PM1a_CNT.SLP_TYP value: 0x%8.8llx", name,
> + (unsigned long long)obj->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value);
> + fwts_log_info(fw, "%s PM1b_CNT.SLP_TYP value: 0x%8.8llx", name,
> + (unsigned long long)obj->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value);
> +
> + if (!failed)
> + fwts_passed(fw, "%s correctly returned sane looking package.",
> + name);
> +}
> +
> +#define method_test_Sx_(name) \
> +static int method_test ## name(fwts_framework *fw) \
> +{ \
> + return method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, \
> + # name, NULL, 0, method_test_Sx__return, # name); \
> +}
> +
> +method_test_Sx_(_S0_)
> +method_test_Sx_(_S1_)
> +method_test_Sx_(_S2_)
> +method_test_Sx_(_S3_)
> +method_test_Sx_(_S4_)
> +method_test_Sx_(_S5_)
> +
> +static int method_test_SWS(fwts_framework *fw)
> +{
> + return method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL,
> + "_SWS", NULL, 0, method_test_integer_return, NULL);
> +}
>
> /*
> * Section 8.4 Declaring Processors
> @@ -3219,14 +3334,13 @@ static fwts_framework_minor_test method_tests[] = {
> { method_test_S4W, "Check _S4W (S4 Device Wake State)." },
>
> /* Section 7.3 OEM-Supplied System-Level Control Methods */
> - /* { method_test_S0_, "Check _S0_ (S0 System State)." }, */
> - /* { method_test_S1_, "Check _S1_ (S1 System State)." }, */
> - /* { method_test_S2_, "Check _S2_ (S2 System State)." }, */
> - /* { method_test_S3_, "Check _S3_ (S3 System State)." }, */
> - /* { method_test_S4_, "Check _S4_ (S4 System State)." }, */
> - /* { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, */
> - /* { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, */
> - /* { method_test_SWS, "Check _SWS (System Wake Source)." }, */
> + { method_test_S0_, "Check _S0_ (S0 System State)." },
> + { method_test_S1_, "Check _S1_ (S1 System State)." },
> + { method_test_S2_, "Check _S2_ (S2 System State)." },
> + { method_test_S3_, "Check _S3_ (S3 System State)." },
> + { method_test_S4_, "Check _S4_ (S4 System State)." },
> + { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." },
> + { method_test_SWS, "Check _SWS (System Wake Source)." },
>
> /* Section 8.4 Declaring Processors */
>
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
Acked-by: Keng-Yu Lin <kengyu at canonical.com>
More information about the fwts-devel
mailing list