Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-03-02 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki 
On Sunday, March 02, 2014 08:53:57 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2014/3/2 8:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 01, 2014 06:24:23 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>  Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
> >>>
> >>> We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object
> >>
> >> Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?
> > 
> > Well, I simply don't think we should say that it is "supported" if we aren't
> > going to do anything with it.
> > 
> 
> Make sense to me. Patch refined as below:
> 
> Sleep control and status registers need santity check as well before
> ACPI install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
> pm_power_off function hooked.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li 

Queued up for 3.15 (with minor changes), thanks!

> 
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 ++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> index b718806..0abfbb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> @@ -807,7 +807,12 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
>   acpi_sleep_hibernate_setup();
> 
>   status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, _a, _b);
> - if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> + /*
> +  * Check both ACPI S5 object and ACPI sleep registers to
> +  * install pm_power_off_prepare/pm_power_off hook
> +  */
> + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
> + acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
>   sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
>   pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>   pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> -- 1.7.10.4
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-03-02 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki 
On Sunday, March 02, 2014 08:53:57 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
 On 2014/3/2 8:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
  On Saturday, March 01, 2014 06:24:23 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
  Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
 
  We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object
 
  Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?
  
  Well, I simply don't think we should say that it is supported if we aren't
  going to do anything with it.
  
 
 Make sense to me. Patch refined as below:
 
 Sleep control and status registers need santity check as well before
 ACPI install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
 acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
 pm_power_off function hooked.
 
 Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li aubrey...@intel.com

Queued up for 3.15 (with minor changes), thanks!

 
 ---
  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 ++-
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 
 diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 index b718806..0abfbb1 100644
 --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 @@ -807,7 +807,12 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
   acpi_sleep_hibernate_setup();
 
   status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, type_a, type_b);
 - if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
 + /*
 +  * Check both ACPI S5 object and ACPI sleep registers to
 +  * install pm_power_off_prepare/pm_power_off hook
 +  */
 + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)  acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address 
 + acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
   sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
   pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
   pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
 -- 1.7.10.4
 --
 To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-acpi in
 the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
 More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-03-01 Thread Li, Aubrey 
On 2014/3/2 8:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, March 01, 2014 06:24:23 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
 Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
>>>
>>> We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object
>>
>> Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?
> 
> Well, I simply don't think we should say that it is "supported" if we aren't
> going to do anything with it.
> 

Make sense to me. Patch refined as below:

Sleep control and status registers need santity check as well before
ACPI install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
pm_power_off function hooked.

Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li 

---
 drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 ++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
index b718806..0abfbb1 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
@@ -807,7 +807,12 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
acpi_sleep_hibernate_setup();

status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, _a, _b);
-   if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
+   /*
+* Check both ACPI S5 object and ACPI sleep registers to
+* install pm_power_off_prepare/pm_power_off hook
+*/
+   if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
+   acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
-- 1.7.10.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-03-01 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki 
On Saturday, March 01, 2014 06:24:23 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2014/2/28 13:33, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> > On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >>> Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
> >>> install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
> >>> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
> >>> pm_power_off function hooked.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li 
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 +--
> >>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> >>> index b718806..0284d22 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> >>> @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
> >>>   status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, _a, _b);
> >>>   if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> >>>   sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
> >>
> >> Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
> > 
> > We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object
> 
> Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?

Well, I simply don't think we should say that it is "supported" if we aren't
going to do anything with it.


> >>
> >>> - pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
> >>> - pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> >>> + if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
> >>> + acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
> >>> + pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
> >>> + pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> >>> + }
> >>>   }
> >>>
> >>>   supported[0] = 0;
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-03-01 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki 
On Saturday, March 01, 2014 06:24:23 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
 On 2014/2/28 13:33, Li, Aubrey wrote:
  On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
  On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
  Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
  install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
  acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
  pm_power_off function hooked.
 
  Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li aubrey...@intel.com
  ---
   drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 +--
   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 
  diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
  index b718806..0284d22 100644
  --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
  +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
  @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, type_a, type_b);
if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
 
  Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
  
  We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object
 
 Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?

Well, I simply don't think we should say that it is supported if we aren't
going to do anything with it.


 
  - pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
  - pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
  + if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address 
  + acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
  + pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
  + pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
  + }
}
 
supported[0] = 0;
 
 
  
 
 --
 To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-acpi in
 the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
 More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-03-01 Thread Li, Aubrey 
On 2014/3/2 8:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
 On Saturday, March 01, 2014 06:24:23 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
 Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?

 We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object

 Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?
 
 Well, I simply don't think we should say that it is supported if we aren't
 going to do anything with it.
 

Make sense to me. Patch refined as below:

Sleep control and status registers need santity check as well before
ACPI install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
pm_power_off function hooked.

Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li aubrey...@intel.com

---
 drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 ++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
index b718806..0abfbb1 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
@@ -807,7 +807,12 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
acpi_sleep_hibernate_setup();

status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, type_a, type_b);
-   if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
+   /*
+* Check both ACPI S5 object and ACPI sleep registers to
+* install pm_power_off_prepare/pm_power_off hook
+*/
+   if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)  acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address 
+   acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
-- 1.7.10.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-02-28 Thread Li, Aubrey 
On 2014/2/28 13:33, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>> Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
>>> install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
>>> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
>>> pm_power_off function hooked.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li 
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 +--
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>>> index b718806..0284d22 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>>> @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
>>> status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, _a, _b);
>>> if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
>>> sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
>>
>> Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
> 
> We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object

Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?

Thanks,
-Aubrey
> 
>>
>>> -   pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>>> -   pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
>>> +   if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
>>> +   acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
>>> +   pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>>> +   pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
>>> +   }
>>> }
>>>
>>> supported[0] = 0;
>>>
>>
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-02-28 Thread Li, Aubrey 
On 2014/2/28 13:33, Li, Aubrey wrote:
 On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
 Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
 install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
 acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
 pm_power_off function hooked.

 Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li aubrey...@intel.com
 ---
  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 +--
  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

 diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 index b718806..0284d22 100644
 --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
 status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, type_a, type_b);
 if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
 sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;

 Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
 
 We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object

Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?

Thanks,
-Aubrey
 

 -   pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
 -   pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
 +   if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address 
 +   acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
 +   pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
 +   pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
 +   }
 }

 supported[0] = 0;


 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-02-27 Thread Li, Aubrey 
On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
>> install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
>> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
>> pm_power_off function hooked.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li 
>> ---
>>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 +--
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>> index b718806..0284d22 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>> @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
>>  status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, _a, _b);
>>  if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
>>  sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
> 
> Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?

We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object

Thanks,
-Aubrey

> 
>> -pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>> -pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
>> +if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
>> +acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
>> +pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>> +pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
>> +}
>>  }
>>
>>  supported[0] = 0;
>>
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-02-27 Thread Li, Aubrey 
On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
 Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
 install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
 acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
 pm_power_off function hooked.

 Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li aubrey...@intel.com
 ---
  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 +--
  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

 diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 index b718806..0284d22 100644
 --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
  status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, type_a, type_b);
  if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
  sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
 
 Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?

We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object

Thanks,
-Aubrey

 
 -pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
 -pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
 +if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address 
 +acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
 +pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
 +pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
 +}
  }

  supported[0] = 0;

 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-02-26 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki 
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
> install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
> pm_power_off function hooked.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li 
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 +--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> index b718806..0284d22 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
>   status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, _a, _b);
>   if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
>   sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;

Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?

> - pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
> - pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> + if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
> + acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
> + pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
> + pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> + }
>   }
> 
>   supported[0] = 0;
> 

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-02-26 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki 
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
 Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
 install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
 acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
 pm_power_off function hooked.
 
 Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li aubrey...@intel.com
 ---
  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 +--
  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 
 diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 index b718806..0284d22 100644
 --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
 @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
   status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, type_a, type_b);
   if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
   sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;

Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?

 - pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
 - pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
 + if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address 
 + acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
 + pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
 + pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
 + }
   }
 
   supported[0] = 0;
 

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-02-25 Thread Li, Aubrey 
Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
pm_power_off function hooked.

Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li 
---
 drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 +--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
index b718806..0284d22 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
@@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, _a, _b);
if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
-   pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
-   pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
+   if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
+   acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
+   pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
+   pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
+   }
}

supported[0] = 0;
-- 
1.7.10.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

2014-02-25 Thread Li, Aubrey 
Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
pm_power_off function hooked.

Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li aubrey...@intel.com
---
 drivers/acpi/sleep.c |7 +--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
index b718806..0284d22 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
@@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, type_a, type_b);
if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
-   pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
-   pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
+   if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address 
+   acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
+   pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
+   pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
+   }
}

supported[0] = 0;
-- 
1.7.10.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/