tyler.durden
/
audk
mirror of https://github.com/acidanthera/audk.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

MdeModulePkg/AcpiTableDxe: Not make FADT.{DSDT,X_DSDT} mutual exclusion 

198a46d768 improved the DSDT and X_DSDT
fields mutual exclusion by checking FADT revision, but that breaks
some OS that has assumption to only consume X_DSDT field even the
DSDT address is < 4G.

To have better compatibility, this patch is to update the code to not
make FADT.{DSDT,X_DSDT} mutual exclusion, but always set both DSDT and
X_DSDT fields in the FADT when the DSDT address is < 4G.

Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
Star Zeng 2017-03-16 15:26:03 +08:00
parent e01e9ae282
commit 78807f6050
1 changed files with 34 additions and 54 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

88
MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c
View File

@ -431,50 +431,6 @@ ReallocateAcpiTableBuffer (
return EFI_SUCCESS;
}
/**
Determine whether the FADT table passed in as parameter requires mutual
exclusion between the DSDT and X_DSDT fields. (That is, whether there exists
an explicit requirement that at most one of those fields is permitted to be
nonzero.)
@param[in] Fadt The EFI_ACPI_3_0_FIXED_ACPI_DESCRIPTION_TABLE object to
check.
@retval TRUE Fadt requires mutual exclusion between DSDT and X_DSDT.
@retval FALSE Otherwise.
**/
BOOLEAN
RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion (
IN EFI_ACPI_3_0_FIXED_ACPI_DESCRIPTION_TABLE *Fadt
)
{
//
// Mantis ticket #1393 was addressed in ACPI 5.1 Errata B. Unfortunately, we
// can't tell apart 5.1 Errata A and 5.1 Errata B just from looking at the
// FADT table. Therefore let's require exclusion for table versions >= 5.1.
//
// While this needlessly covers 5.1 and 5.1A too, it is safer to require
// DSDT<->X_DSDT exclusion for lax (5.1, 5.1A) versions of the spec than to
// permit DSDT<->X_DSDT duplication for strict (5.1B) versions of the spec.
//
// The same applies to 6.0 vs. 6.0A. While 6.0 does not require the
// exclusion, 6.0A and 6.1 do. Since we cannot distinguish 6.0 from 6.0A
// based on just the FADT, we lump 6.0 in with the rest of >= 5.1.
//
if ((Fadt->Header.Revision < 5) ||
((Fadt->Header.Revision == 5) &&
(((EFI_ACPI_5_1_FIXED_ACPI_DESCRIPTION_TABLE *)Fadt)->MinorVersion == 0))) {
//
// version <= 5.0
//
return FALSE;
}
//
// version >= 5.1
//
return TRUE;
}
/**
This function adds an ACPI table to the table list. It will detect FACS and
allocate the correct type of memory and properly align the table.
@ -692,11 +648,23 @@ AddTableToList (
}
if ((UINT64)(UINTN)AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3 < BASE_4GB) {
AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = (UINT32) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3;
if (RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion (AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3)) {
Buffer64 = 0;
} else {
Buffer64 = AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt;
}
//
// Comment block "the caller installs the tables in "DSDT, FADT" order"
// The below comments are also in "the caller installs the tables in "FADT, DSDT" order" comment block.
//
// The ACPI specification, up to and including revision 5.1 Errata A,
// allows the DSDT and X_DSDT fields to be both set in the FADT.
// (Obviously, this only makes sense if the DSDT address is representable in 4 bytes.)
// Starting with 5.1 Errata B, specifically for Mantis 1393 <https://mantis.uefi.org/mantis/view.php?id=1393>,
// the spec requires at most one of DSDT and X_DSDT fields to be set to a nonzero value,
// but strangely an exception is 6.0 that has no this requirement.
//
// Here we do not make the DSDT and X_DSDT fields mutual exclusion conditionally
// by checking FADT revision, but always set both DSDT and X_DSDT fields in the FADT
// to have better compatibility as some OS may have assumption to only consume X_DSDT
// field even the DSDT address is < 4G.
//
Buffer64 = AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt;
} else {
AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = 0;
Buffer64 = (UINT64) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3;
@ -896,11 +864,23 @@ AddTableToList (
if (AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3 != NULL) {
if ((UINT64)(UINTN)AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3 < BASE_4GB) {
AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = (UINT32) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3;
if (RequireDsdtXDsdtExclusion (AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3)) {
Buffer64 = 0;
} else {
Buffer64 = AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt;
}
//
// Comment block "the caller installs the tables in "FADT, DSDT" order"
// The below comments are also in "the caller installs the tables in "DSDT, FADT" order" comment block.
//
// The ACPI specification, up to and including revision 5.1 Errata A,
// allows the DSDT and X_DSDT fields to be both set in the FADT.
// (Obviously, this only makes sense if the DSDT address is representable in 4 bytes.)
// Starting with 5.1 Errata B, specifically for Mantis 1393 <https://mantis.uefi.org/mantis/view.php?id=1393>,
// the spec requires at most one of DSDT and X_DSDT fields to be set to a nonzero value,
// but strangely an exception is 6.0 that has no this requirement.
//
// Here we do not make the DSDT and X_DSDT fields mutual exclusion conditionally
// by checking FADT revision, but always set both DSDT and X_DSDT fields in the FADT
// to have better compatibility as some OS may have assumption to only consume X_DSDT
// field even the DSDT address is < 4G.
//
Buffer64 = AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt;
} else {
AcpiTableInstance->Fadt3->Dsdt = 0;
Buffer64 = (UINT64) (UINTN) AcpiTableInstance->Dsdt3;