[PATCH v2 0/3] Correct for ACPI 5.1->6.0 spec changes in MADT GICC entries

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael at kernel.org> wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Al Stone <ahs3 at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 06/30/2015 11:07 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> Hi Al,
>>>
>>> On 18/06/15 23:36, Al Stone wrote:
>>>> In the ACPI 5.1 version of the spec, the struct for the GICC subtable
>>>> (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt) of the MADT is 76 bytes long; in
>>>> ACPI 6.0, the struct is 80 bytes long.  But, there is only one definition
>>>> in ACPICA for this struct -- and that is the 6.0 version.  Hence, when
>>>> BAD_MADT_ENTRY() compares the struct size to the length in the GICC
>>>> subtable, it fails if 5.1 structs are in use, and there are systems in
>>>> the wild that have them.
>>>>
>>>> Note that this was found in linux-next and these patches apply against
>>>> that tree and the arm64 kernel tree; 4.1-rc8 does not appear to have this
>>>> problem since it still has the 5.1 struct definition.
>>>>
>>>> Even though there is precendent in ia64 code for ignoring the changes in
>>>> size, this patch set instead tries to verify correctness.  The first patch
>>>> in the set adds macros for easily using the ACPI spec version.  The second
>>>> patch adds the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY() macro that uses the version macros to
>>>> check the GICC subtable only, accounting for the difference in specification
>>>> versions that are possible.  The final patch replaces BAD_MADT_ENTRY usage
>>>> with the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY macro in arm64 code, which is currently the
>>>> only architecture affected.  The BAD_MADT_ENTRY() will continue to work as
>>>> is for all other MADT subtables.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We need to get this series or a patch to remove the check(similar to
>>> ia64) based on what Rafael prefers. Without that, platforms using ACPI
>>> on ARM64 fails to boot with latest mainline. This blocks any testing on
>>> ARM64/ACPI systems.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sudeep
>>
>> I have not received any other feedback than some Reviewed-bys from
>> Hanjun and an ACK from Will for the arm64 patch.
>>
>> And absolutely agreed: this is a blocker for arm64/ACPI, starting with
>> the ACPICA 20150515 patches which appear to have gone in with 4.2-rc1.
>>
>> Rafael?  Ping?
>
> I overlooked the fact that this was needed to fix a recent regression,
> sorry about that.
>
> Actually, if your patch fixes an error introduced by a specific
> commit, it is good to use the Fixes: tag to indicate that.  Which I
> still would like to do, so which commit is fixed by this?
>
>> Do we need these to go through your tree or the arm64
>> tree?  Without this series (or an ia64-like solution), we have ACPI
>> systems in the field that cannot boot.
>
> I'm not quite sure why the definition of BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY has to go
> into include/linux/acpi.h.  Why is it necessary in there?

Like what about defining it in linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h for example?

Rafael