[PATCH] acpi: method: allow _WAK to return an integer

[Alex Hung]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:05 AM, Colin Ian King
<colin.king at canonical.com> wrote:
> On 22/02/18 09:59, ivanhu wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>>
>> I think it's no harm to give a warning for the firmware which not
>> followed the ACPI spec.
>
> +1
>
>>
>> FWTS tests the firmware, not test for OS(Windows and Linux), even OSes
>> work with it, but it still not followed the ACPI spec.
>
> +1
>
>>
>> Besides, we are not sure all OSes work with it.
>
> +1
>
>>
>> Or we can send an ECR to UEFI forum to modify the ACPI _WAK method for
>> returning integer.
>
> Clarification with the UEFI forum would be useful too.

Certainly, I will send an email to awsg to ask about the history and
for comments.

>
> Colin
>>
>>
>> Anyone has comments?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> On 02/21/2018 03:27 PM, Alex Hung wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:20 PM, ivanhu <ivan.hu at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 02/14/2018 02:19 PM, Alex Hung wrote:
>>>>> Linux kernel allows _WAK to return an integer, as in acpica/acpredef.h.
>>>>> The reason seems to be that so many system BIOS returns an integer
>>>>> instead of a package defined in ACPI spec, and it becomes a strange
>>>>> standard already. Since operating system allows the integer, it should
>>>>> be appropriate for fwts to relax it as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung at canonical.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   src/acpi/method/method.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++--------
>>>>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/src/acpi/method/method.c b/src/acpi/method/method.c
>>>>> index 6839c3f..7c73e14 100644
>>>>> --- a/src/acpi/method/method.c
>>>>> +++ b/src/acpi/method/method.c
>>>>> @@ -5552,17 +5552,26 @@ static void method_test_WAK_return(
>>>>>         void *private)
>>>>>   {
>>>>>         FWTS_UNUSED(private);
>>>>> +       FWTS_UNUSED(buf);
>>>>>   -     if (fwts_method_check_type(fw, name, buf, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE) !=
>>>>> FWTS_OK)
>>>>> -               return;
>>>>> -
>>>>> -       if (fwts_method_package_count_equal(fw, name, "_WAK", obj, 2) !=
>>>>> FWTS_OK)
>>>>> -               return;
>>>>> +       switch (obj->Type) {
>>>>> +       case ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE:
>>>>> +               if (fwts_method_package_count_equal(fw, name, "_WAK", obj,
>>>>> 2) != FWTS_OK)
>>>>> +                       return;
>>>>>   -     if (fwts_method_package_elements_all_type(fw, name, "_WAK", obj,
>>>>> ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) != FWTS_OK)
>>>>> -               return;
>>>>> +               if (fwts_method_package_elements_all_type(fw, name,
>>>>> "_WAK", obj, ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) != FWTS_OK)
>>>>> +                       return;
>>>>>   -     fwts_method_passed_sane(fw, name, "package");
>>>>> +               fwts_method_passed_sane(fw, name, "package");
>>>>> +               break;
>>>>> +       case ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER:
>>>>> +               fwts_method_passed_sane(fw, name, "integer");
>>>>> +               break;
>>>>> +       default:
>>>>> +               fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL, "MethodReturnBadType",
>>>>> +                       "%s did not return a package or an integer.",
>>>>> name);
>>>>> +               break;
>>>>> +       }
>>>>>   }
>>>>>     static int method_test_WAK(fwts_framework *fw)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Should we give some warnings for this?
>>> As far as I know, both Linux and Windows have been allowing it for
>>> many years, since nobody gets it right since the beginning. It is
>>> almost like a standard now...
>>>
>>> I would say we don't need to worry about it at all.
>>>
>>>> Ivan
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> fwts-devel mailing list
>>>> fwts-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/fwts-devel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Cheers,
Alex Hung