|
[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 Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 03:25:42PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> The 2nd system I tried on would trigger it, so maybe there's no point
> in logging indeed. How about the below as a basis?
>
> Jan
>
> --- unstable.orig/xen/arch/x86/acpi/boot.c
> +++ unstable/xen/arch/x86/acpi/boot.c
> @@ -480,7 +480,9 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_fadt(struct
> if (fadt->header.revision >= FADT2_REVISION_ID) {
> /* FADT rev. 2 */
> if (fadt->xpm_timer_block.space_id ==
> - ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO) {
> + ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO &&
> + (fadt->xpm_timer_block.access_width == 0 ||
> + fadt->xpm_timer_block.access_width == 3)) {
We should really have defines for those values, or else they seem to
imply actual access sizes. What about adding
ACPI_ADDR_ACCESS_{LEGACY,BYTE,WORD,DWORD,QWORD}?
Also the check for the access size seems kind of unrelated to the
patch itself? (not that I'm opposed to it)
> pmtmr_ioport = fadt->xpm_timer_block.address;
> pmtmr_width = fadt->xpm_timer_block.bit_width;
> }
> @@ -492,8 +494,10 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_fadt(struct
> */
> if (!pmtmr_ioport) {
> pmtmr_ioport = fadt->pm_timer_block;
> - pmtmr_width = fadt->pm_timer_length == 4 ? 24 : 0;
> + pmtmr_width = fadt->pm_timer_length == 4 ? 32 : 0;
> }
> + if (pmtmr_width > 24 && !(fadt->flags & ACPI_FADT_32BIT_TIMER))
> + pmtmr_width = 24;
> if (pmtmr_ioport)
> printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "PM-Timer IO Port: %#x (%u bits)\n",
> pmtmr_ioport, pmtmr_width);
> --- unstable.orig/xen/arch/x86/time.c
> +++ unstable/xen/arch/x86/time.c
> @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ static s64 __init init_pmtimer(struct pl
> u64 start;
> u32 count, target, mask = 0xffffff;
>
> - if ( !pmtmr_ioport || !pmtmr_width )
> + if ( !pmtmr_ioport )
> return 0;
>
> if ( pmtmr_width == 32 )
> @@ -473,6 +473,8 @@ static s64 __init init_pmtimer(struct pl
> pts->counter_bits = 32;
> mask = 0xffffffff;
> }
> + else if ( pmtmr_width != pts->counter_bits )
> + return 0;
>
> count = inl(pmtmr_ioport) & mask;
> start = rdtsc_ordered();
The rest LGTM.
Thanks, Roger.
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |