Re: [PATCH 0/5] ACPI: bus: _OSC fixes

[Armin Wolf]

Am 12.03.24 um 21:10 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:

> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 9:13 PM Armin Wolf <W_Armin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > This patch series fixes the handling of various ACPI features bits
> > when evaluating _OSC.
> >
> > The first three patches fix the reporting of various features supported
> > by the kernel, while the fourth patch corrects the feature bit used to
> > indicate support for the "Generic Initiator Affinity" in SRAT.
> >
> > The last patch fixes the reporting of IRQ ResourceSource support. Unlike
> > the other feature bits, the ACPI specification states that this feature
> > bit might be used by the ACPI firmware to indicate whether or not it
> > supports the usage of IRQ ResourceSource:
> >
> >          "If not set, the OS may choose to ignore the ResourceSource
> >           parameter in the extended interrupt descriptor."
> >
> > Since the code responsible for parsing IRQ ResourceSource already checks
> > if ResourceSource is present, i assumed that we can omit taking this
> > into account.
> >
> > All patches where tested on a Asus Prime B650-Plus and a Dell Inspiron
> > 3505.
> >
> > Armin Wolf (5):
> >    ACPI: bus: Indicate support for _TFP thru _OSC
> >    ACPI: bus: Indicate support for more than 16 p-states thru _OSC
> >    ACPI: bus: Indicate support for the Generic Event Device thru _OSC
> >    ACPI: Fix Generic Initiator Affinity _OSC bit
> >    ACPI: bus: Indicate support for IRQ ResourceSource thru _OSC
> >
> >   drivers/acpi/bus.c   | 5 +++++
> >   include/linux/acpi.h | 6 +++++-
> >   2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --
> All of that looks reasonable to me, but do you know about systems in
> the field where any of these patches actually fix functionality?
>
> If not, I'd prefer to queue them up for 6.10 as they are likely to
> change behavior, at least in corner cases.
>
> Thanks!

Hi,

i know no system which even queries those feature bits, so i am fine with
this landing in 6.10.

Thanks,
Armin Wolf