On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:11:08 -0400, Anthony Jenkins wrote:
> On 03/19/2015 04:10 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:30:23 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> > > > On Mar 18, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Anthony Jenkins
> > <anthony.b.jenk...@att.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 03/18/2015 11:29 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> > > >>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Anthony Jenkins
> > <anthony.b.jenk...@att.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> \Where else might ATRTC_VERBOSE be set otherwise?
> > > >>> I'm picturing a (future?) config(5) knob, e.g.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> device atrtc
> > > >>> options ATRTC_VERBOSE=1
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> so it can be set at compile time.
> > > >> Why not just boot verbose? history has shown too many options like
> > > >> this is hard to use.
> >
> > You can blame this on me :) I agree about the option not being needed;
> > the way it is you can just set sysctl hw.acpi.atrtc_verbose=0 to quell
> > reports of successful access, if it turns out these are routine on some
> > machines, especially outside of boot/suspend/resume contexts.
> >
> > However I'll still argue that, this being a new gadget and that we could
> > use finding out which vendors want to read or write which locations in
> > CMOS for whatever reason, at least while it's in head, we should log all
> > access by default unless setting atrtc_verbose=0,
>
> So the default verbosity of ACPI CMOS region accesses should be
> "verbose"? I personally don't mind the default being "silent" and
> asking people triaging an ACPI problem to boot verbosely and send the
> logs (I think that's in the FreeBSD ACPI handbook anyway).
Assuming they know that their problem is ACPI related, sure.
> > and in _any_ case we
> > should be logging attempts to R/W out-of-bounds CMOS locations.
>
> Error logs are always printed; they don't honor atrtc_verbose.
That would be comforting. However I was referring to rev. 5:
+ if (bitwidth == 0 || bitwidth > 32 || (bitwidth & 0x07) ||
+ addr + bytewidth - 1 > 63) {
+ ATRTC_DBG_PRINTF(1,
+ "Invalid bitwidth (%u) or addr (0x%08lx).\n",
+ bitwidth, addr);
+ return AE_BAD_PARAMETER;
+ }
+ if (!acpi_check_rtc_access(func == ACPI_READ, addr, bytewidth)) {
+ ATRTC_DBG_PRINTF(1, "Bad CMOS %s access at addr 0x%08lx.\n",
+ func == ACPI_READ ? "read" : "write", addr);
+ return AE_BAD_PARAMETER;
+ }
> > > > I think I understand what you're saying... I also prefer fewer
> > config(5)
> > > > knobs. So you're suggesting I determine (at runtime) the boot verbose
> > > > setting (kenv(2) or however it's properly done) and dump the
> > > > compile-time verbosity setting?
> > >
> > > if (bootverbose)
> > > do verbose things;
> > >
> > > is how thatÿÿs done.
> >
> > Sure, and maybe successful access could be limited to bootverbose, and
> > we could ask people whose boxes fail to boot/suspend/resume/whatever to
> > boot verbose to reveal such as why Anthony's HP Envy either failed to
> > suspend or immediately resumed - which isn't entirely clear, even with
> > the messages - unless its ACPI AML succeeded in reading minute, hour and
> > weekday, but I have a feeling we may see more of this sort of thing.
>
> Now that I think about it, adding this ACPI CMOS region access should
> simply eliminate a class of failures where FreeBSD wasn't giving the
> BIOS access to CMOS.
Do we have other examples than your HP Envy of such a class of failures?
> Logging /successful/ R/W accesses to CMOS by the
> BIOS (AML) won't really provide any useful info (IMHO), but the user can
> flip on bootverbose if she's curious. If a user's box fails to
> boot/suspend/resume/whatever, we'll see any ACPI CMOS region access errors.
Well I've made a case otherwise, likely too avidly; I'll leave it there.
Thanks for flushing out this issue and doing something about it!
cheers, Ian
_______________________________________________
freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
