[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/acpi: Use FADT flags to determine the PMTMR width
On 16.06.2020 12:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:07:05AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 14.06.2020 16:36, Grzegorz Uriasz wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/boot.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/boot.c >>> @@ -480,7 +480,10 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_fadt(struct >>> acpi_table_header *table) >>> if (fadt->xpm_timer_block.space_id == >>> ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO) { >>> pmtmr_ioport = fadt->xpm_timer_block.address; >>> - pmtmr_width = fadt->xpm_timer_block.bit_width; >>> + if (fadt->flags & ACPI_FADT_32BIT_TIMER) >>> + pmtmr_width = 32; >>> + else >>> + pmtmr_width = 24; >> >> I think disagreement of the two wants logging, and you want to >> default to using the smaller of the two (or even to ignoring the >> timer altogether). Then there wants to be a way to override >> (unless we already have one) our defaulting, in case it's wrong. > > TBH, I presume timer_block will always return 32bits, because that's > the size of the register. Then the timer can implement less bits than > the full size of the register, and that's what gets signaled using the > ACPI flags. What we care about here is the number of bits used by the > timer, not the size of the register. The first random system I checked this on reports 24 bits as bit_width (and the flag clear, i.e. both are consistent). The flag, aiui, is really important only in the ACPI v1 case, where the size of the register was a byte-granular value. The spec isn't helpful in clarifying applicability of the flag though, i.e. one can interpret it either way imo. Jan > I think we should only ignore the timer if pm_timer_block.bit_width < > pmtmr_width. > > Printing a (debug) message when those values disagree is fine, but I > bet it's going to trigger always when the implemented timer is only > using 24bits. > > Roger. >
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |