1. 09 Aug, 2019 1 commit
    • Jiri Slaby's avatar
      ACPI / processor: don't print errors for processorIDs == 0xff · 2c2b005f
      Jiri Slaby authored
      Some platforms define their processors in this manner:
          Device (SCK0)
          {
      	Name (_HID, "ACPI0004" /* Module Device */)  // _HID: Hardware ID
      	Name (_UID, "CPUSCK0")  // _UID: Unique ID
      	Processor (CP00, 0x00, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      	Processor (CP01, 0x02, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      	Processor (CP02, 0x04, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      	Processor (CP03, 0x06, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      	Processor (CP04, 0x01, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      	Processor (CP05, 0x03, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      	Processor (CP06, 0x05, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      	Processor (CP07, 0x07, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      	Processor (CP08, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      	Processor (CP09, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      	Processor (CP0A, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      	Processor (CP0B, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
      ...
      
      The processors marked as 0xff are invalid, there are only 8 of them in
      this case.
      
      So do not print an error on ids == 0xff, just print an info message.
      Actually, we could return ENODEV even on the first CPU with ID 0xff, but
      ACPI spec does not forbid the 0xff value to be a processor ID. Given
      0xff could be a correct one, we would break working systems if we
      returned ENODEV.
      Signed-off-by: default avatarJiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
      2c2b005f
  2. 05 Aug, 2019 1 commit
  3. 04 Aug, 2019 10 commits
  4. 03 Aug, 2019 28 commits