Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1704882 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] RFC: platform/x86: wmi: Fix check for method instance number

Started byPali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>
First post2017-08-06 17:50 +0200
Last post2017-08-06 22:20 +0200
Articles 3 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] RFC: platform/x86: wmi: Fix check for method instance number Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] RFC: platform/x86: wmi: Fix check for method instance  number Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> - 2017-08-06 18:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] RFC: platform/x86: wmi: Fix check for method instance number Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 22:20 +0200

#1704882 — Re: [PATCH] RFC: platform/x86: wmi: Fix check for method instance number

FromPali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>
Date2017-08-06 17:50 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH] RFC: platform/x86: wmi: Fix check for method instance number
Message-ID<ubvYv-466-23@gated-at.bofh.it>

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wednesday 14 June 2017 17:46:54 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 June 2017 11:42:28 Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 08:04:57PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 13 June 2017 18:49:51 Darren Hart wrote:
> > > > I'd suggest reaching out to the maintainers and contributors to
> > > > the drivers you mention to request some help in testing.
> > > 
> > > Seems sane. Grep for all methods with instance number different
> > > as zero (or just number one -- which can be suspicious as
> > > somebody could thought that indexing is from one, not zer) and
> > > try to receive ACPI/BMOF data and verify it.
> > 
> > This would still be the ideal solution, verify we can do the right
> > thing without breaking existing drivers. Agreed.
> 
> Here is all usage:
> 
> Function wmi_set_block:
> 
>   msi-wmi.c:
>   instance=0 /* Instance 0 is "set backlight" */
> 
>   tc1100-wmi.c:
>   instance=TC1100_INSTANCE_WIRELESS /* defined as 1 */
>   instance=TC1100_INSTANCE_JOGDIAL  /* defined as 2 */
> 
> Function wmi_query_block:
> 
>   acer-wmi.c:
>   instance=1 /* no comment why,
> guid=95764E09-FB56-4E83-B31A-37761F60994A */
> 
>   dell-wmi.c:
>   instance=0
> 
>   msi-wmi.c:
>   instance=1 /* Instance 1 is "get backlight", cmp with DSDT */
> 
>   surface3-wmi.c:
>   instance=0
> 
>   tc1100-wmi.c:
>   (same as in wmi_set_block)
> 
> Function wmi_evaluate_method:
> 
>   acer-wmi.c:
>   instance=1 /* no comment why,
> guid=67C3371D-95A3-4C37-BB61-DD47B491DAAB */ instance=1 /* no
> comment why, guid=6AF4F258-B401-42FD-BE91-3D4AC2D7C0D3 */ instance=0
> 
>   alienware-wmi.c:
>   instance=1 /* no comment why,
> guid=A70591CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */ instance=1 /* no
> comment why, guid=A80593CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */ instance=1
> /* no comment why, guid=A70591CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */
> 
>   asus-wmi.c:
>   instance=1 /* no comment why,
> guid=97845ED0-4E6D-11DE-8A39-0800200C9A66 */
> 
>   dell-wmi-led.c:
>   instance=1 /* no comment why,
> guid=F6E4FE6E-909D-47cb-8BAB-C9F6F2F8D396 */
> 
>   hp-wmi.c:
>   instance=0
> 
>   mxm-wmi.c:
>   instance=1 /* no comment why,
> guid=F6CB5C3C-9CAE-4EBD-B577-931EA32A2CC0 */
> 
> So problematic drivers which use instance=1 without any comments are:
> 
>   acer-wmi
>   alienware-wmi
>   asus-wmi
>   dell-wmi-led
>   mxm-wmi

Also there is a new problematic driver named peaq-wmi.c added by Hans. 
Adding into loop. Hans, can you recheck if arguments for 
wmi_evaluate_method() are correct, specially instance number "1"?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1704885 — Re: [PATCH] RFC: platform/x86: wmi: Fix check for method instance number

FromHans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Date2017-08-06 18:20 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH] RFC: platform/x86: wmi: Fix check for method instance number
Message-ID<ubwrw-4vj-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1704882
Hi,

On 06-08-17 17:42, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 June 2017 17:46:54 Pali Rohár wrote:
>> On Tuesday 13 June 2017 11:42:28 Darren Hart wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 08:04:57PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 13 June 2017 18:49:51 Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>> I'd suggest reaching out to the maintainers and contributors to
>>>>> the drivers you mention to request some help in testing.
>>>>
>>>> Seems sane. Grep for all methods with instance number different
>>>> as zero (or just number one -- which can be suspicious as
>>>> somebody could thought that indexing is from one, not zer) and
>>>> try to receive ACPI/BMOF data and verify it.
>>>
>>> This would still be the ideal solution, verify we can do the right
>>> thing without breaking existing drivers. Agreed.
>>
>> Here is all usage:
>>
>> Function wmi_set_block:
>>
>>    msi-wmi.c:
>>    instance=0 /* Instance 0 is "set backlight" */
>>
>>    tc1100-wmi.c:
>>    instance=TC1100_INSTANCE_WIRELESS /* defined as 1 */
>>    instance=TC1100_INSTANCE_JOGDIAL  /* defined as 2 */
>>
>> Function wmi_query_block:
>>
>>    acer-wmi.c:
>>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
>> guid=95764E09-FB56-4E83-B31A-37761F60994A */
>>
>>    dell-wmi.c:
>>    instance=0
>>
>>    msi-wmi.c:
>>    instance=1 /* Instance 1 is "get backlight", cmp with DSDT */
>>
>>    surface3-wmi.c:
>>    instance=0
>>
>>    tc1100-wmi.c:
>>    (same as in wmi_set_block)
>>
>> Function wmi_evaluate_method:
>>
>>    acer-wmi.c:
>>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
>> guid=67C3371D-95A3-4C37-BB61-DD47B491DAAB */ instance=1 /* no
>> comment why, guid=6AF4F258-B401-42FD-BE91-3D4AC2D7C0D3 */ instance=0
>>
>>    alienware-wmi.c:
>>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
>> guid=A70591CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */ instance=1 /* no
>> comment why, guid=A80593CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */ instance=1
>> /* no comment why, guid=A70591CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */
>>
>>    asus-wmi.c:
>>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
>> guid=97845ED0-4E6D-11DE-8A39-0800200C9A66 */
>>
>>    dell-wmi-led.c:
>>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
>> guid=F6E4FE6E-909D-47cb-8BAB-C9F6F2F8D396 */
>>
>>    hp-wmi.c:
>>    instance=0
>>
>>    mxm-wmi.c:
>>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
>> guid=F6CB5C3C-9CAE-4EBD-B577-931EA32A2CC0 */
>>
>> So problematic drivers which use instance=1 without any comments are:
>>
>>    acer-wmi
>>    alienware-wmi
>>    asus-wmi
>>    dell-wmi-led
>>    mxm-wmi
> 
> Also there is a new problematic driver named peaq-wmi.c added by Hans.
> Adding into loop. Hans, can you recheck if arguments for
> wmi_evaluate_method() are correct, specially instance number "1"?

Ok, so looking at wmi_evaluate_method() the instance number becomes
arg0 and the DSDT implementation of the WMBC method which is the one
we care about is:

             Method (WMBC, 3, NotSerialized)
             {
                 If (Arg1 == 0x05)
                 {
                     Local0 = ^^GPO0.DBLY /* \_SB_.GPO0.DBLY */
                     ^^GPO0.DBLY = Zero
                     Return (Local0)
                 }

                 Return (0xFFFFFFFF)
             }

So the instance_index / Arg0 does not matter. I just tested passing 0
and that works fine. Feel free to change this if that helps with the
wmi refactoring.

Interestingly enough passing wmi.debug_dump_wdg=1 shows that the
BC object claims to have 10 instances, but the whole peaq-wmi
interface appears to be a messy quick hack from the manufacturer,
so that is not surprising.

Regards,

Hans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1704955

FromPali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>
Date2017-08-06 22:20 +0200
Message-ID<ubAbL-6NP-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1704885

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sunday 06 August 2017 18:18:06 Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 06-08-17 17:42, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 June 2017 17:46:54 Pali Rohár wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 13 June 2017 11:42:28 Darren Hart wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 08:04:57PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday 13 June 2017 18:49:51 Darren Hart wrote:
> >>>>> I'd suggest reaching out to the maintainers and contributors to
> >>>>> the drivers you mention to request some help in testing.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Seems sane. Grep for all methods with instance number different
> >>>> as zero (or just number one -- which can be suspicious as
> >>>> somebody could thought that indexing is from one, not zer) and
> >>>> try to receive ACPI/BMOF data and verify it.
> >>> 
> >>> This would still be the ideal solution, verify we can do the
> >>> right thing without breaking existing drivers. Agreed.
> >> 
> >> Here is all usage:
> >> 
> >> Function wmi_set_block:
> >>    msi-wmi.c:
> >>    instance=0 /* Instance 0 is "set backlight" */
> >>    
> >>    tc1100-wmi.c:
> >>    instance=TC1100_INSTANCE_WIRELESS /* defined as 1 */
> >>    instance=TC1100_INSTANCE_JOGDIAL  /* defined as 2 */
> >> 
> >> Function wmi_query_block:
> >>    acer-wmi.c:
> >>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
> >> 
> >> guid=95764E09-FB56-4E83-B31A-37761F60994A */
> >> 
> >>    dell-wmi.c:
> >>    instance=0
> >>    
> >>    msi-wmi.c:
> >>    instance=1 /* Instance 1 is "get backlight", cmp with DSDT */
> >>    
> >>    surface3-wmi.c:
> >>    instance=0
> >>    
> >>    tc1100-wmi.c:
> >>    (same as in wmi_set_block)
> >> 
> >> Function wmi_evaluate_method:
> >>    acer-wmi.c:
> >>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
> >> 
> >> guid=67C3371D-95A3-4C37-BB61-DD47B491DAAB */ instance=1 /* no
> >> comment why, guid=6AF4F258-B401-42FD-BE91-3D4AC2D7C0D3 */
> >> instance=0
> >> 
> >>    alienware-wmi.c:
> >>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
> >> 
> >> guid=A70591CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */ instance=1 /* no
> >> comment why, guid=A80593CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */
> >> instance=1 /* no comment why,
> >> guid=A70591CE-A997-11DA-B012-B622A1EF5492 */
> >> 
> >>    asus-wmi.c:
> >>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
> >> 
> >> guid=97845ED0-4E6D-11DE-8A39-0800200C9A66 */
> >> 
> >>    dell-wmi-led.c:
> >>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
> >> 
> >> guid=F6E4FE6E-909D-47cb-8BAB-C9F6F2F8D396 */
> >> 
> >>    hp-wmi.c:
> >>    instance=0
> >>    
> >>    mxm-wmi.c:
> >>    instance=1 /* no comment why,
> >> 
> >> guid=F6CB5C3C-9CAE-4EBD-B577-931EA32A2CC0 */
> >> 
> >> So problematic drivers which use instance=1 without any comments
> >> are:
> >>    acer-wmi
> >>    alienware-wmi
> >>    asus-wmi
> >>    dell-wmi-led
> >>    mxm-wmi
> > 
> > Also there is a new problematic driver named peaq-wmi.c added by
> > Hans. Adding into loop. Hans, can you recheck if arguments for
> > wmi_evaluate_method() are correct, specially instance number "1"?
> 
> Ok, so looking at wmi_evaluate_method() the instance number becomes
> arg0 and the DSDT implementation of the WMBC method which is the one
> we care about is:
> 
>              Method (WMBC, 3, NotSerialized)
>              {
>                  If (Arg1 == 0x05)
>                  {
>                      Local0 = ^^GPO0.DBLY /* \_SB_.GPO0.DBLY */
>                      ^^GPO0.DBLY = Zero
>                      Return (Local0)
>                  }
> 
>                  Return (0xFFFFFFFF)
>              }
> 
> So the instance_index / Arg0 does not matter. I just tested passing 0
> and that works fine. Feel free to change this if that helps with the
> wmi refactoring.

Ok, thanks for testing.

> Interestingly enough passing wmi.debug_dump_wdg=1 shows that the
> BC object claims to have 10 instances, but the whole peaq-wmi
> interface appears to be a messy quick hack from the manufacturer,
> so that is not surprising.

Apparently, this is fully correct and should not cause any problems. 
Just all instances would do same thing.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web