<feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'>
<title>linux-toradex.git/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c, branch v3.4.2</title>
<subtitle>Linux kernel for Apalis and Colibri modules</subtitle>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.toradex.cn/cgit/linux-toradex.git/'/>
<entry>
<title>PCI: Rework ASPM disable code</title>
<updated>2011-12-05T18:21:45+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Matthew Garrett</name>
<email>mjg@redhat.com</email>
</author>
<published>2011-11-10T21:38:33+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.toradex.cn/cgit/linux-toradex.git/commit/?id=3c076351c4027a56d5005a39a0b518a4ba393ce2'/>
<id>3c076351c4027a56d5005a39a0b518a4ba393ce2</id>
<content type='text'>
Right now we forcibly clear ASPM state on all devices if the BIOS indicates
that the feature isn't supported. Based on the Microsoft presentation
"PCI Express In Depth for Windows Vista and Beyond", I'm starting to think
that this may be an error. The implication is that unless the platform
grants full control via _OSC, Windows will not touch any PCIe features -
including ASPM. In that case clearing ASPM state would be an error unless
the platform has granted us that control.

This patch reworks the ASPM disabling code such that the actual clearing
of state is triggered by a successful handoff of PCIe control to the OS.
The general ASPM code undergoes some changes in order to ensure that the
ability to clear the bits isn't overridden by ASPM having already been
disabled. Further, this theoretically now allows for situations where
only a subset of PCIe roots hand over control, leaving the others in the
BIOS state.

It's difficult to know for sure that this is the right thing to do -
there's zero public documentation on the interaction between all of these
components. But enough vendors enable ASPM on platforms and then set this
bit that it seems likely that they're expecting the OS to leave them alone.

Measured to save around 5W on an idle Thinkpad X220.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett &lt;mjg@redhat.com&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
Right now we forcibly clear ASPM state on all devices if the BIOS indicates
that the feature isn't supported. Based on the Microsoft presentation
"PCI Express In Depth for Windows Vista and Beyond", I'm starting to think
that this may be an error. The implication is that unless the platform
grants full control via _OSC, Windows will not touch any PCIe features -
including ASPM. In that case clearing ASPM state would be an error unless
the platform has granted us that control.

This patch reworks the ASPM disabling code such that the actual clearing
of state is triggered by a successful handoff of PCIe control to the OS.
The general ASPM code undergoes some changes in order to ensure that the
ability to clear the bits isn't overridden by ASPM having already been
disabled. Further, this theoretically now allows for situations where
only a subset of PCIe roots hand over control, leaving the others in the
BIOS state.

It's difficult to know for sure that this is the right thing to do -
there's zero public documentation on the interaction between all of these
components. But enough vendors enable ASPM on platforms and then set this
bit that it seems likely that they're expecting the OS to leave them alone.

Measured to save around 5W on an idle Thinkpad X220.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett &lt;mjg@redhat.com&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>ACPI: fix 80 char overflow</title>
<updated>2011-07-14T04:14:05+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Jon Mason</name>
<email>jdmason@kudzu.us</email>
</author>
<published>2011-06-19T23:51:37+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.toradex.cn/cgit/linux-toradex.git/commit/?id=e545b55a1e980cbb6a158886286106bbf39722b1'/>
<id>e545b55a1e980cbb6a158886286106bbf39722b1</id>
<content type='text'>
Trivial fix for 80 char line overflow in drivers/acpi/pci_root.c

Signed-off-by: Jon Mason &lt;jdmason@kudzu.us&gt;
Signed-off-by: Len Brown &lt;len.brown@intel.com&gt;
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
Trivial fix for 80 char line overflow in drivers/acpi/pci_root.c

Signed-off-by: Jon Mason &lt;jdmason@kudzu.us&gt;
Signed-off-by: Len Brown &lt;len.brown@intel.com&gt;
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>PCI/ACPI: Report _OSC control mask returned on failure to get control</title>
<updated>2011-05-10T22:43:37+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Rafael J. Wysocki</name>
<email>rjw@sisk.pl</email>
</author>
<published>2011-04-29T22:21:38+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.toradex.cn/cgit/linux-toradex.git/commit/?id=a246670ddee3132fa71f8993d3989ad8ac04d965'/>
<id>a246670ddee3132fa71f8993d3989ad8ac04d965</id>
<content type='text'>
If an attempt to get _OSC control of the PCIe native features from the
BIOS fails, report the resulting mask of control flags the BIOS was
willing to grant in the error message.  Moreover, if the _OSC support
mask is insufficient for requesting control of the PCIe native features
or pcie_ports_disabled is set, print a diagnostic message containing the
_OSC support mask.  This helps to diagnose obscure _OSC-related problems
on a number machines.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
If an attempt to get _OSC control of the PCIe native features from the
BIOS fails, report the resulting mask of control flags the BIOS was
willing to grant in the error message.  Moreover, if the _OSC support
mask is insufficient for requesting control of the PCIe native features
or pcie_ports_disabled is set, print a diagnostic message containing the
_OSC support mask.  This helps to diagnose obscure _OSC-related problems
on a number machines.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>PCI: Disable ASPM when _OSC control is not granted for PCIe services</title>
<updated>2011-03-21T16:41:08+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Naga Chumbalkar</name>
<email>nagananda.chumbalkar@hp.com</email>
</author>
<published>2011-03-21T03:29:20+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.toradex.cn/cgit/linux-toradex.git/commit/?id=eca67315e0e0d5fd91264d79c88694006dbc7d31'/>
<id>eca67315e0e0d5fd91264d79c88694006dbc7d31</id>
<content type='text'>
v3 -&gt; v2: Added text to describe the problem
v2 -&gt; v1: Split this patch from v1
v1	: Part of: http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&amp;m=130042212003242&amp;w=2

Disable ASPM when no _OSC control for PCIe services is granted
by the BIOS. This is to protect systems with a buggy BIOS that
did not set the ACPI FADT "ASPM Controls" bit even though the
underlying HW can't do ASPM.

To turn "on" ASPM the minimum the BIOS needs to do:
1. Clear the ACPI FADT "ASPM Controls" bit.
2. Support _OSC appropriately

There is no _OSC Control bit for ASPM. However, we expect the BIOS to
support _OSC for a Root Bridge that originates a PCIe hierarchy. If this
is not the case - we are better off not enabling ASPM on that server.

Commit 852972acff8f10f3a15679be2059bb94916cba5d (ACPI: Disable ASPM if the
Platform won't provide _OSC control for PCIe) describes the above scenario.
To quote verbatim from there:
[The PCI SIG documentation for the _OSC OS/firmware handshaking interface
states:

"If the _OSC control method is absent from the scope of a host bridge
device, then the operating system must not enable or attempt to use any
features defined in this section for the hierarchy originated by the host
bridge."

The obvious interpretation of this is that the OS should not attempt to use
PCIe hotplug, PME or AER - however, the specification also notes that an
_OSC method is *required* for PCIe hierarchies, and experimental validation
with An Alternative OS indicates that it doesn't use any PCIe functionality
if the _OSC method is missing. That arguably means we shouldn't be using
MSI or extended config space, but right now our problems seem to be limited
to vendors being surprised when ASPM gets enabled on machines when other
OSs refuse to do so. So, for now, let's just disable ASPM if the _OSC
method doesn't exist or refuses to hand over PCIe capability control.]

Signed-off-by: Naga Chumbalkar &lt;nagananda.chumbalkar@hp.com&gt;
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Cc: Matthew Garrett &lt;mjg59@srcf.ucam.org&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
v3 -&gt; v2: Added text to describe the problem
v2 -&gt; v1: Split this patch from v1
v1	: Part of: http://marc.info/?l=linux-pci&amp;m=130042212003242&amp;w=2

Disable ASPM when no _OSC control for PCIe services is granted
by the BIOS. This is to protect systems with a buggy BIOS that
did not set the ACPI FADT "ASPM Controls" bit even though the
underlying HW can't do ASPM.

To turn "on" ASPM the minimum the BIOS needs to do:
1. Clear the ACPI FADT "ASPM Controls" bit.
2. Support _OSC appropriately

There is no _OSC Control bit for ASPM. However, we expect the BIOS to
support _OSC for a Root Bridge that originates a PCIe hierarchy. If this
is not the case - we are better off not enabling ASPM on that server.

Commit 852972acff8f10f3a15679be2059bb94916cba5d (ACPI: Disable ASPM if the
Platform won't provide _OSC control for PCIe) describes the above scenario.
To quote verbatim from there:
[The PCI SIG documentation for the _OSC OS/firmware handshaking interface
states:

"If the _OSC control method is absent from the scope of a host bridge
device, then the operating system must not enable or attempt to use any
features defined in this section for the hierarchy originated by the host
bridge."

The obvious interpretation of this is that the OS should not attempt to use
PCIe hotplug, PME or AER - however, the specification also notes that an
_OSC method is *required* for PCIe hierarchies, and experimental validation
with An Alternative OS indicates that it doesn't use any PCIe functionality
if the _OSC method is missing. That arguably means we shouldn't be using
MSI or extended config space, but right now our problems seem to be limited
to vendors being surprised when ASPM gets enabled on machines when other
OSs refuse to do so. So, for now, let's just disable ASPM if the _OSC
method doesn't exist or refuses to hand over PCIe capability control.]

Signed-off-by: Naga Chumbalkar &lt;nagananda.chumbalkar@hp.com&gt;
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Cc: Matthew Garrett &lt;mjg59@srcf.ucam.org&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>PCI/ACPI: Report ASPM support to BIOS if not disabled from command line</title>
<updated>2011-03-21T16:38:02+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Rafael J. Wysocki</name>
<email>rjw@sisk.pl</email>
</author>
<published>2011-03-05T12:21:51+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.toradex.cn/cgit/linux-toradex.git/commit/?id=8b8bae901ce23addbdcdb54fa1696fb2d049feb5'/>
<id>8b8bae901ce23addbdcdb54fa1696fb2d049feb5</id>
<content type='text'>
We need to distinguish the situation in which ASPM support is
disabled from the command line or through .config from the situation
in which it is disabled, because the hardware or BIOS can't handle
it.  In the former case we should not report ASPM support to the BIOS
through ACPI _OSC, but in the latter case we should do that.

Introduce pcie_aspm_support_enabled() that can be used by
acpi_pci_root_add() to determine whether or not it should report ASPM
support to the BIOS through _OSC.

Cc: stable@kernel.org
References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29722
References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20232
Reported-and-tested-by: Ortwin Glück &lt;odi@odi.ch&gt;
Reviewed-by: Kenji Kaneshige &lt;kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com&gt;
Tested-by: Kenji Kaneshige &lt;kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com&gt;
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
We need to distinguish the situation in which ASPM support is
disabled from the command line or through .config from the situation
in which it is disabled, because the hardware or BIOS can't handle
it.  In the former case we should not report ASPM support to the BIOS
through ACPI _OSC, but in the latter case we should do that.

Introduce pcie_aspm_support_enabled() that can be used by
acpi_pci_root_add() to determine whether or not it should report ASPM
support to the BIOS through _OSC.

Cc: stable@kernel.org
References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29722
References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20232
Reported-and-tested-by: Ortwin Glück &lt;odi@odi.ch&gt;
Reviewed-by: Kenji Kaneshige &lt;kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com&gt;
Tested-by: Kenji Kaneshige &lt;kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com&gt;
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>ACPI: Fix boot problem related to APEI with acpi_disabled set</title>
<updated>2011-01-16T19:56:26+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Rafael J. Wysocki</name>
<email>rjw@sisk.pl</email>
</author>
<published>2011-01-16T19:44:22+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.toradex.cn/cgit/linux-toradex.git/commit/?id=d3072e6a7e9bf7aca200370317f8e297be360b17'/>
<id>d3072e6a7e9bf7aca200370317f8e297be360b17</id>
<content type='text'>
Commit 415e12b23792 ("PCI/ACPI: Request _OSC control once for each root
bridge (v3)") put the acpi_hest_init() call in acpi_pci_root_init() into
a wrong place, presumably because the author confused acpi_pci_disabled
with acpi_disabled.  Bring the code ordering in acpi_pci_root_init()
back to sanity.

Additionally, make sure that hest_disable is set when acpi_disabled is
set, which is going to prevent acpi_hest_parse(), that still may be
executed for acpi_disabled=1 through aer_acpi_firmware_first(), from
crashing because of uninitialized hest_tab.

Reported-and-tested-by: Andres Salomon &lt;dilinger@queued.net&gt;
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds &lt;torvalds@linux-foundation.org&gt;
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
Commit 415e12b23792 ("PCI/ACPI: Request _OSC control once for each root
bridge (v3)") put the acpi_hest_init() call in acpi_pci_root_init() into
a wrong place, presumably because the author confused acpi_pci_disabled
with acpi_disabled.  Bring the code ordering in acpi_pci_root_init()
back to sanity.

Additionally, make sure that hest_disable is set when acpi_disabled is
set, which is going to prevent acpi_hest_parse(), that still may be
executed for acpi_disabled=1 through aer_acpi_firmware_first(), from
crashing because of uninitialized hest_tab.

Reported-and-tested-by: Andres Salomon &lt;dilinger@queued.net&gt;
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds &lt;torvalds@linux-foundation.org&gt;
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>PCI/ACPI: Request _OSC control once for each root bridge (v3)</title>
<updated>2011-01-14T16:55:41+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Rafael J. Wysocki</name>
<email>rjw@sisk.pl</email>
</author>
<published>2011-01-06T23:55:09+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.toradex.cn/cgit/linux-toradex.git/commit/?id=415e12b2379239973feab91850b0dce985c6058a'/>
<id>415e12b2379239973feab91850b0dce985c6058a</id>
<content type='text'>
Move the evaluation of acpi_pci_osc_control_set() (to request control of
PCI Express native features) into acpi_pci_root_add() to avoid calling
it many times for the same root complex with the same arguments.
Additionally, check if all of the requisite _OSC support bits are set
before calling acpi_pci_osc_control_set() for a given root complex.

References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20232
Reported-by: Ozan Caglayan &lt;ozan@pardus.org.tr&gt;
Tested-by: Ozan Caglayan &lt;ozan@pardus.org.tr&gt;
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
Move the evaluation of acpi_pci_osc_control_set() (to request control of
PCI Express native features) into acpi_pci_root_add() to avoid calling
it many times for the same root complex with the same arguments.
Additionally, check if all of the requisite _OSC support bits are set
before calling acpi_pci_osc_control_set() for a given root complex.

References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20232
Reported-by: Ozan Caglayan &lt;ozan@pardus.org.tr&gt;
Tested-by: Ozan Caglayan &lt;ozan@pardus.org.tr&gt;
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>ACPI: remove unused declaration of proc_fs.h</title>
<updated>2010-10-16T02:03:36+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Zhang Rui</name>
<email>rui.zhang@intel.com</email>
</author>
<published>2010-10-08T05:55:17+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.toradex.cn/cgit/linux-toradex.git/commit/?id=03e7c3432d40d067476eaf49ede29128b637998f'/>
<id>03e7c3432d40d067476eaf49ede29128b637998f</id>
<content type='text'>
Remove unused declaration of proc_fs.h.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui &lt;rui.zhang@intel.com&gt;
Signed-off-by: Len Brown &lt;len.brown@intel.com&gt;
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
Remove unused declaration of proc_fs.h.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui &lt;rui.zhang@intel.com&gt;
Signed-off-by: Len Brown &lt;len.brown@intel.com&gt;
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>PCI: PCIe: Ask BIOS for control of all native services at once</title>
<updated>2010-08-24T20:47:33+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Rafael J. Wysocki</name>
<email>rjw@sisk.pl</email>
</author>
<published>2010-08-21T20:02:38+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.toradex.cn/cgit/linux-toradex.git/commit/?id=28eb5f274a305bf3a13b2c80c4804d4515d05c64'/>
<id>28eb5f274a305bf3a13b2c80c4804d4515d05c64</id>
<content type='text'>
After commit 852972acff8f10f3a15679be2059bb94916cba5d (ACPI: Disable
ASPM if the platform won't provide _OSC control for PCIe) control of
the PCIe Capability Structure is unconditionally requested by
acpi_pci_root_add(), which in principle may cause problems to
happen in two ways.  First, the BIOS may refuse to give control of
the PCIe Capability Structure if it is not asked for any of the
_OSC features depending on it at the same time.  Second, the BIOS may
assume that control of the _OSC features depending on the PCIe
Capability Structure will be requested in the future and may behave
incorrectly if that doesn't happen.  For this reason, control of
the PCIe Capability Structure should always be requested along with
control of any other _OSC features that may depend on it (ie. PCIe
native PME, PCIe native hot-plug, PCIe AER).

Rework the PCIe port driver so that (1) it checks which native PCIe
port services can be enabled, according to the BIOS, and (2) it
requests control of all these services simultaneously.  In
particular, this causes pcie_portdrv_probe() to fail if the BIOS
refuses to grant control of the PCIe Capability Structure, which
means that no native PCIe port services can be enabled for the PCIe
Root Complex the given port belongs to.  If that happens, ASPM is
disabled to avoid problems with mishandling it by the part of the
PCIe hierarchy for which control of the PCIe Capability Structure
has not been received.

Make it possible to override this behavior using 'pcie_ports=native'
(use the PCIe native services regardless of the BIOS response to the
control request), or 'pcie_ports=compat' (do not use the PCIe native
services at all).

Accordingly, rework the existing PCIe port service drivers so that
they don't request control of the services directly.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
After commit 852972acff8f10f3a15679be2059bb94916cba5d (ACPI: Disable
ASPM if the platform won't provide _OSC control for PCIe) control of
the PCIe Capability Structure is unconditionally requested by
acpi_pci_root_add(), which in principle may cause problems to
happen in two ways.  First, the BIOS may refuse to give control of
the PCIe Capability Structure if it is not asked for any of the
_OSC features depending on it at the same time.  Second, the BIOS may
assume that control of the _OSC features depending on the PCIe
Capability Structure will be requested in the future and may behave
incorrectly if that doesn't happen.  For this reason, control of
the PCIe Capability Structure should always be requested along with
control of any other _OSC features that may depend on it (ie. PCIe
native PME, PCIe native hot-plug, PCIe AER).

Rework the PCIe port driver so that (1) it checks which native PCIe
port services can be enabled, according to the BIOS, and (2) it
requests control of all these services simultaneously.  In
particular, this causes pcie_portdrv_probe() to fail if the BIOS
refuses to grant control of the PCIe Capability Structure, which
means that no native PCIe port services can be enabled for the PCIe
Root Complex the given port belongs to.  If that happens, ASPM is
disabled to avoid problems with mishandling it by the part of the
PCIe hierarchy for which control of the PCIe Capability Structure
has not been received.

Make it possible to override this behavior using 'pcie_ports=native'
(use the PCIe native services regardless of the BIOS response to the
control request), or 'pcie_ports=compat' (do not use the PCIe native
services at all).

Accordingly, rework the existing PCIe port service drivers so that
they don't request control of the services directly.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>ACPI/PCI: Negotiate _OSC control bits before requesting them </title>
<updated>2010-08-24T20:44:40+00:00</updated>
<author>
<name>Rafael J. Wysocki</name>
<email>rjw@sisk.pl</email>
</author>
<published>2010-08-23T21:53:11+00:00</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.toradex.cn/cgit/linux-toradex.git/commit/?id=75fb60f26befb59dbfa05cb122972642b7bdd219'/>
<id>75fb60f26befb59dbfa05cb122972642b7bdd219</id>
<content type='text'>
It is possible that the BIOS will not grant control of all _OSC
features requested via acpi_pci_osc_control_set(), so it is
recommended to negotiate the final set of _OSC features with the
query flag set before calling _OSC to request control of these
features.

To implement it, rework acpi_pci_osc_control_set() so that the caller
can specify the mask of _OSC control bits to negotiate and the mask
of _OSC control bits that are absolutely necessary to it.  Then,
acpi_pci_osc_control_set() will run _OSC queries in a loop until
the mask of _OSC control bits returned by the BIOS is equal to the
mask passed to it.  Also, before running the _OSC request
acpi_pci_osc_control_set() will check if the caller's required
control bits are present in the final mask.

Using this mechanism we will be able to avoid situations in which the
BIOS doesn't grant control of certain _OSC features, because they
depend on some other _OSC features that have not been requested.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</content>
<content type='xhtml'>
<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>
<pre>
It is possible that the BIOS will not grant control of all _OSC
features requested via acpi_pci_osc_control_set(), so it is
recommended to negotiate the final set of _OSC features with the
query flag set before calling _OSC to request control of these
features.

To implement it, rework acpi_pci_osc_control_set() so that the caller
can specify the mask of _OSC control bits to negotiate and the mask
of _OSC control bits that are absolutely necessary to it.  Then,
acpi_pci_osc_control_set() will run _OSC queries in a loop until
the mask of _OSC control bits returned by the BIOS is equal to the
mask passed to it.  Also, before running the _OSC request
acpi_pci_osc_control_set() will check if the caller's required
control bits are present in the final mask.

Using this mechanism we will be able to avoid situations in which the
BIOS doesn't grant control of certain _OSC features, because they
depend on some other _OSC features that have not been requested.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki &lt;rjw@sisk.pl&gt;
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes &lt;jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org&gt;
</pre>
</div>
</content>
</entry>
</feed>
