From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9D75803FD for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:17:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=intel; t=1489652233; x=1521188233; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id; bh=lFw9AtEoRJ//23o4C0Hnp9P4BU/Pf52nb8nqfWTtv8Q=; b=nSBz58nCDFfEYnmf0kCNE1XuucSkU4T40eD6kHZswtfL4tiHVI1blbcI nyKZunK/EXSU+JHtSRakfphJj8r8JQ==; Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Mar 2017 01:17:13 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,170,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="76020680" Received: from shwdeopenpsi068.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.239.9.22]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2017 01:17:12 -0700 From: Star Zeng To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org Cc: Star Zeng , Laszlo Ersek , Jeff Fan , Jiewen Yao Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:17:09 +0800 Message-Id: <1489652229-8940-1-git-send-email-star.zeng@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.0.windows.1 Subject: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/AcpiTableDxe: Not make FADT.{DSDT, X_DSDT} mutual exclusion X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:17:14 -0000 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 Cc: Jeff Fan Cc: Jiewen Yao Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Star Zeng 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(-) 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 , + // 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 , + // 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; -- 2.7.0.windows.1