From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 3 17:51:27 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6DE0106567A; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:51:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: John Baldwin Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:51:06 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <201010121209.06397.hselasky@c2i.net> <201011031225.46128.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <201011031247.56071.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201011031247.56071.jhb@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201011031351.18832.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Moore, Robert" , freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, Lin Ming , Andriy Gapon Subject: Re: MacBookPro 5,1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:51:27 -0000 On Wednesday 03 November 2010 12:47 pm, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, November 03, 2010 12:25:37 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > On Wednesday 03 November 2010 08:28 am, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:32:12 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 02 November 2010 05:26 pm, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, November 02, 2010 4:50:18 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > > > > 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] = > > > > > > > > > > > 0; > > > > > > > > > > > + memset(&resptr->Data.ExtendedIrq.ResourceSo > > > > > > > > > > >urce , 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. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > To be clear, I am suggesting to take an ACPI_RESOURCE > > > > > object, bzero it, then set the type and the IRQ and that's > > > > > it. Leave the ResourceSource bits as zero. The size will > > > > > still be set based on the actual type (or if needed we can > > > > > use the cached size from the template copy we save from > > > > > _PRS). The point would be to start from a zero structure > > > > > instead of from a copy of what we got from _PRS. > > > > > > > > It may work if we don't use l_prs_template. > > > > > > Well, we still need much of the info from the _PRS resource > > > (the type, etc.), but I think we should not blindly use the > > > template directly when building the buffer for _SRS. > > > > Actually, I think we should get the information directly from > > _CRS as ACPI spec. is suggesting. > > I would be fine with that, but that does not work if _CRS doesn't > work (the acpi_pci_link_srs_from_links() case). For that case, we must use the template, of course. In fact, my patch is more useful for this particular case. :-) > Are we allowed to modify the buffer ACPICA gives us from _CRS and > then pass that back to _SRS? I believe so. If we go with that route, we don't have to worry about ResourceSource.StringPtr or acpi_AppendBufferResource() copying stale pointers. Jung-uk Kim