[PATCH 1/2] acpi: method: Add _S0_ .. _S5_, _SWS checks

[Alex Hung]

On 09/21/2012 01:37 AM, Colin King 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.
> + 	 */
> +

I never notice this until you brought this up. So None of the BIOS or 
Linux is 100% ACPI-compliant. May it be the Windows starts this mistake?

> +	/* 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 */
>
>

Acked-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung at canonical.com>