[PATCH RFC v3 01/21] ACPI: Only enumerate enabled (or functional) devices

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 6:32 PM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron at huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 12:49:16 +0000
> Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel at armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > From: James Morse <james.morse at arm.com>
> >
> > Today the ACPI enumeration code 'visits' all devices that are present.
> >
> > This is a problem for arm64, where CPUs are always present, but not
> > always enabled. When a device-check occurs because the firmware-policy
> > has changed and a CPU is now enabled, the following error occurs:
> > | acpi ACPI0007:48: Enumeration failure
> >
> > This is ultimately because acpi_dev_ready_for_enumeration() returns
> > true for a device that is not enabled. The ACPI Processor driver
> > will not register such CPUs as they are not 'decoding their resources'.
> >
> > Change acpi_dev_ready_for_enumeration() to also check the enabled bit.
> > ACPI allows a device to be functional instead of maintaining the
> > present and enabled bit. Make this behaviour an explicit check with
> > a reference to the spec, and then check the present and enabled bits.
> > This is needed to avoid enumerating present && functional devices that
> > are not enabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse at arm.com>
> > Tested-by: Miguel Luis <miguel.luis at oracle.com>
> > Tested-by: Vishnu Pajjuri <vishnu at os.amperecomputing.com>
> > Tested-by: Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu at arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel at armlinux.org.uk>
> > ---
> > If this change causes problems on deployed hardware, I suggest an
> > arch opt-in: ACPI_IGNORE_STA_ENABLED, that causes
> > acpi_dev_ready_for_enumeration() to only check the present bit.
>
> My gut feeling (having made ACPI 'fixes' in the past that ran into
> horribly broken firmware and had to be reverted) is reduce the blast
> radius preemptively from the start. I'd love to live in a world were
> that wasn't necessary but I don't trust all the generators of ACPI tables.
> I'll leave it to Rafael and other ACPI experts suggest how narrow we should
> make it though - arch opt in might be narrow enough.

A chicken bit wouldn't help much IMO, especially in the cases when
working setups get broken.

I would very much prefer to limit the scope of it, say to processors
only, in the first place.