From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
To: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>, edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>, Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/AcpiTableDxe: Not make FADT.{DSDT, X_DSDT} mutual exclusion
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:59:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1002c38c-8bdf-d51a-3bc4-b604178d1295@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1489652229-8940-1-git-send-email-star.zeng@intel.com>
On 03/16/17 09:17, Star Zeng wrote:
> 198a46d768fb90d2f9b16e26451b4814e7469eaf improved the DSDT and X_DSDT
> fields mutual exclusion by checking FADT revision, but that breaks
> some OS that has assumption to only consume X_DSDT field even the
> DSDT address is < 4G.
>
> To have better compatibility, this patch is to update the code to not
> make FADT.{DSDT,X_DSDT} mutual exclusion, but always set both DSDT and
> X_DSDT fields in the FADT when the DSDT address is < 4G.
>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> Signed-off-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
>
> NOTE: This patch comes out from the discussion at
> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2017-March/008580.html.
> ---
> .../Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c | 88 +++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Thank you!
Laszlo
> diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c
> index 4bb848df5203..a4fd9aff845d 100644
> --- a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c
> +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c
> @@ -432,50 +432,6 @@ ReallocateAcpiTableBuffer (
> }
>
> /**
> - Determine whether the FADT table passed in as parameter requires mutual
> - exclusion between the DSDT and X_DSDT fields. (That is, whether there exists
> - an explicit requirement that at most one of those fields is permitted to be
> - nonzero.)
> -
> - @param[in] Fadt The EFI_ACPI_3_0_FIXED_ACPI_DESCRIPTION_TABLE object to
> - check.
> -
> - @retval TRUE Fadt requires mutual exclusion between DSDT and X_DSDT.
> - @retval FALSE Otherwise.
> -**/
> -BOOLEAN
> -RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion (
> - IN EFI_ACPI_3_0_FIXED_ACPI_DESCRIPTION_TABLE *Fadt
> - )
> -{
> - //
> - // Mantis ticket #1393 was addressed in ACPI 5.1 Errata B. Unfortunately, we
> - // can't tell apart 5.1 Errata A and 5.1 Errata B just from looking at the
> - // FADT table. Therefore let's require exclusion for table versions >= 5.1.
> - //
> - // While this needlessly covers 5.1 and 5.1A too, it is safer to require
> - // DSDT<->X_DSDT exclusion for lax (5.1, 5.1A) versions of the spec than to
> - // permit DSDT<->X_DSDT duplication for strict (5.1B) versions of the spec.
> - //
> - // The same applies to 6.0 vs. 6.0A. While 6.0 does not require the
> - // exclusion, 6.0A and 6.1 do. Since we cannot distinguish 6.0 from 6.0A
> - // based on just the FADT, we lump 6.0 in with the rest of >= 5.1.
> - //
> - if ((Fadt->Header.Revision < 5) ||
> - ((Fadt->Header.Revision == 5) &&
> - (((EFI_ACPI_5_1_FIXED_ACPI_DESCRIPTION_TABLE *)Fadt)->MinorVersion == 0))) {
> - //
> - // version <= 5.0
> - //
> - return FALSE;
> - }
> - //
> - // version >= 5.1
> - //
> - return TRUE;
> -}
> -
> -/**
> This function adds an ACPI table to the table list. It will detect FACS and
> allocate the correct type of memory and properly align the table.
>
> @@ -692,11 +648,23 @@ AddTableToList (
> }
> if ((UINT64)(UINTN)AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3 < BASE_4GB) {
> AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = (UINT32) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3;
> - if (RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion (AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3)) {
> - Buffer64 = 0;
> - } else {
> - Buffer64 = AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt;
> - }
> + //
> + // Comment block "the caller installs the tables in "DSDT, FADT" order"
> + // The below comments are also in "the caller installs the tables in "FADT, DSDT" order" comment block.
> + //
> + // The ACPI specification, up to and including revision 5.1 Errata A,
> + // allows the DSDT and X_DSDT fields to be both set in the FADT.
> + // (Obviously, this only makes sense if the DSDT address is representable in 4 bytes.)
> + // Starting with 5.1 Errata B, specifically for Mantis 1393 <https://mantis.uefi.org/mantis/view.php?id=1393>,
> + // the spec requires at most one of DSDT and X_DSDT fields to be set to a nonzero value,
> + // but strangely an exception is 6.0 that has no this requirement.
> + //
> + // Here we do not make the DSDT and X_DSDT fields mutual exclusion conditionally
> + // by checking FADT revision, but always set both DSDT and X_DSDT fields in the FADT
> + // to have better compatibility as some OS may have assumption to only consume X_DSDT
> + // field even the DSDT address is < 4G.
> + //
> + Buffer64 = AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt;
> } else {
> AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = 0;
> Buffer64 = (UINT64) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3;
> @@ -896,11 +864,23 @@ AddTableToList (
> if (AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3 != NULL) {
> if ((UINT64)(UINTN)AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3 < BASE_4GB) {
> AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = (UINT32) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3;
> - if (RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion (AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3)) {
> - Buffer64 = 0;
> - } else {
> - Buffer64 = AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt;
> - }
> + //
> + // Comment block "the caller installs the tables in "FADT, DSDT" order"
> + // The below comments are also in "the caller installs the tables in "DSDT, FADT" order" comment block.
> + //
> + // The ACPI specification, up to and including revision 5.1 Errata A,
> + // allows the DSDT and X_DSDT fields to be both set in the FADT.
> + // (Obviously, this only makes sense if the DSDT address is representable in 4 bytes.)
> + // Starting with 5.1 Errata B, specifically for Mantis 1393 <https://mantis.uefi.org/mantis/view.php?id=1393>,
> + // the spec requires at most one of DSDT and X_DSDT fields to be set to a nonzero value,
> + // but strangely an exception is 6.0 that has no this requirement.
> + //
> + // Here we do not make the DSDT and X_DSDT fields mutual exclusion conditionally
> + // by checking FADT revision, but always set both DSDT and X_DSDT fields in the FADT
> + // to have better compatibility as some OS may have assumption to only consume X_DSDT
> + // field even the DSDT address is < 4G.
> + //
> + Buffer64 = AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt;
> } else {
> AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = 0;
> Buffer64 = (UINT64) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-16 11:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-16 8:17 [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/AcpiTableDxe: Not make FADT.{DSDT, X_DSDT} mutual exclusion Star Zeng
2017-03-16 11:59 ` Laszlo Ersek [this message]
2017-03-17 0:59 ` Fan, Jeff
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1002c38c-8bdf-d51a-3bc4-b604178d1295@redhat.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox