Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:55:58 -0700 From: "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com> To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>, "Lin, Ming M" <ming.m.lin@intel.com>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: MacBookPro 5,1 Message-ID: <4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D830858BC3F4EB2@orsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <201011021650.22657.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <201010121209.06397.hselasky@c2i.net> <201011021614.07631.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <201011021624.38882.jhb@freebsd.org> <201011021650.22657.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yes, it is important to keep all of these structures the same. The last time I personally ran into this was when we attempted to optimize = an interrupt descriptor before sending it out via _SRS. Since the size of t= he whole template was now different than the size of the _CRS, the BIOS fai= led on it. >-----Original Message----- >From: Jung-uk Kim [mailto:jkim@FreeBSD.org] >Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:50 PM >To: John Baldwin >Cc: Andriy Gapon; Hans Petter Selasky; Lin, Ming M; Moore, Robert; freebsd= - >acpi@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: MacBookPro 5,1 > >On Tuesday 02 November 2010 04:24 pm, John Baldwin wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 02, 2010 4:14:05 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: >> > On Tuesday 02 November 2010 03:41 pm, John Baldwin wrote: >> > > On Tuesday, November 02, 2010 3:29:01 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: >> > > > On Tuesday 02 November 2010 11:29 am, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> > > > > on 29/10/2010 08:51 Andriy Gapon said the following: >> > > > > > I guess that a general problem here is that it is >> > > > > > incorrect to merely use memcpy/bcopy to create a copy of >> > > > > > a resource if the resource has ACPI_RESOURCE_SOURCE field >> > > > > > in it. >> > > > > >> > > > > Hans, >> > > > > >> > > > > could you please test the following patch? >> > > > > >> > > > > diff --git a/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_pci_link.c >> > > > > b/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_pci_link.c index dcf101d..e842635 >> > > > > 100644 --- a/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_pci_link.c >> > > > > +++ b/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_pci_link.c >> > > > > @@ -767,6 +767,8 @@ acpi_pci_link_srs_from_crs >> > > > > link->l_irq; >> > > > > else >> > > > > resptr->Data.ExtendedIrq.Interrupts[0] =3D 0; >> > > > > + memset(&resptr->Data.ExtendedIrq.ResourceSource, 0, >> > > > > + sizeof(ACPI_RESOURCE_SOURCE)); >> > > > > link++; >> > > > > i++; >> > > > > break; >> > > > >> > > > Hmm... Very interesting. Can you please try this, too? >> > > >> > > Linux doesn't set the resource source bits up at all when doing >> > > _SRS, so I'd rather just do that. I think what I'd prefer is >> > > that we not use the prs_template, perhaps just save the type of >> > > the resource and build a new resource object from scratch where >> > > the resource is zero'd, the appropriate bits are set and then >> > > that resource is appended to the buffer being built. >> > >> > "Linux doesn't do it" is wrong if I am reading the spec. >> > correctly, i.e., _CRS, _PRS and _SRS must have the same format >> > and size. >> >> Umm, but we aren't setting up the raw bits for _SRS. We are >> creating a list of ACPI_RESOURCE objects that ACPICA then encodes >> into a buffer to send to _SRS. > >Yes, I understand. However, ACPICA is expecting the same size of >buffer *including* the optional parts if I am reading the code right. >Besides, I don't think there is any harm in doing the right >thing. ;-) > >Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D830858BC3F4EB2>