| Message ID | 3283809.44csPzL39Z@kreacher |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ACPI: scan: Check enabled _STA bit on Bus/Device Checks | expand |
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:28 AM Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:40:52 +0100 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > > Modify acpi_processor_add() return an error if _STA returns the enabled > > bit clear for the given processor device, so as to avoid using processors > > that don't decode their resources, as per the ACPI specification. [1] > > > > Link: https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/06_Device_Configuration.html#sta-device-status # [1] > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > Sorry for lack of reply on discussion. No worries. > Your follow up mails never reached my inbox for some reason /me blames spam filters somewhere. > so I just caught up on lore. I'll keep an eye on > the archives to make sure I don't miss further discussion. Thanks! > Agreed that functional isn't relevant here so this patch is correct. > Also agree that it would be nice to clarify the spec as you mentioned > to say that bit 1 is reserved if bit 0 of _STA result is clear. > Depending on interpretation it's either a clarification or a relaxation > of current statements, so should be uncontroversial (famous last words ;) Right. > +CC kangkang so this is on his radar as an ACPI cleanup suggestion. > For his reference, discussion is here: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/CAJZ5v0jjD=KN0pOuWZZ8DT5yHdu03KgOSHYe3wB7h2vafNa44w@mail.gmail.com/ > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> Thanks for all of the reviews!
Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/internal.h =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/internal.h +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/internal.h @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ int acpi_device_setup_files(struct acpi_ void acpi_device_remove_files(struct acpi_device *dev); void acpi_device_add_finalize(struct acpi_device *device); void acpi_free_pnp_ids(struct acpi_device_pnp *pnp); +bool acpi_device_is_enabled(const struct acpi_device *adev); bool acpi_device_is_present(const struct acpi_device *adev); bool acpi_device_is_battery(struct acpi_device *adev); bool acpi_device_is_first_physical_node(struct acpi_device *adev, Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c @@ -381,6 +381,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_add(struct acp struct device *dev; int result = 0; + if (!acpi_device_is_enabled(device)) + return -ENODEV; + pr = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_processor), GFP_KERNEL); if (!pr) return -ENOMEM; Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c @@ -1945,6 +1945,11 @@ bool acpi_device_is_present(const struct return adev->status.present || adev->status.functional; } +bool acpi_device_is_enabled(const struct acpi_device *adev) +{ + return adev->status.present && adev->status.enabled; +} + static bool acpi_scan_handler_matching(struct acpi_scan_handler *handler, const char *idstr, const struct acpi_device_id **matchid)