lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed
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.li@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;
>>>
>>
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-01 02:41    [W:0.061 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site