On 10/12/2015 10:06 PM, Pat Erley wrote:
On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Al Stone wrote:
On 10/11/2015 09:58 PM, Pat Erley wrote:
On 10/11/2015 08:49 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 10/12/2015 11:08 AM, Pat Erley wrote:
On 10/05/2015 10:12 AM, Al Stone wrote:
On 10/05/2015 07:39 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:10:16 AM Al Stone wrote: >> On 09/30/2015 03:00 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>> On 2015/9/30 7:45, Al Stone wrote: >>>> NB: this patch set is for use against the linux-pm bleeding edge >>>> branch. >>>> >> >> [snip...] >> >>> >>> For this patch set, >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org >>> >>> Thanks >>> Hanjun >> >> Thanks, Hanjun! > > Series applied, thanks! > > Rafael >
Thanks, Rafael!
Just decided to test out linux-next (to see the new nouveau cleanups). This change set prevents my Lenovo W510 from booting properly.
Reverting: 7494b0 "ACPI: add in a bad_madt_entry() function to eventually replace the macro"
Gets the system booting again. I'm attaching my dmesg from the failed boot, who wants the acpidump?
[ 0.000000] ACPI: undefined version for either FADT 4.0 or MADT 1 [ 0.000000] ACPI: Error parsing LAPIC address override entry [ 0.000000] ACPI: Invalid BIOS MADT, disabling ACPI
Seems the MADT revision is not right, could you dump the ACPI MADT (APIC) table and send it out? I will take a look :)
Thanks Hanjun
Here ya go, enjoy. Feel free to CC me on any patches that might fix it.
Pat,
Would you mind sending a copy of the FADT, also, please? The first of the ACPI messages is a check of version correspondence between the FADT and MADT, while the second message is from looking at just an MADT subtable. Thanks for sending the MADT out -- that helps me quite a lot in thinking this through.
BTW, whoever is providing the BIOS (Lenovo, I assume) may want to have a look at these, also:
[ 0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): 32/64X length mismatch in FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 16/32 (20150818/tbfadt-623) [ 0.000000] ACPI BIOS Warning (bug): Invalid length for FADT/Pm1aControlBlock: 32, using default 16 (20150818/tbfadt-704)
Not inherently dangerous, but definitely sloppy and mind-numbingly easy to avoid, IIRC.
Here ya go.
Okay. There's just a lot of weird stuff out there in ACPI-land. I've attached four minor fixes for the special cases that have been reported (well, the last one is actually a fix for a typo in the spec, but just the same...).
These should apply on top of linux-next; would you mind trying them out to make sure I didn't break anything else on your laptop? If they behave as I hope they will, I think I'll have covered all the places where the checking of MADT subtables needs to be be relaxed a bit. These work for me on arm64, but if they work for you and a couple of other testers, then I'll send them to Rafael properly.
Many thanks!