From 78807f605082ecec60c3b465a6e6f3e01741bf2c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Star Zeng Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:26:03 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/AcpiTableDxe: Not make FADT.{DSDT,X_DSDT} mutual exclusion 198a46d768fb90d2f9b16e26451b4814e7469eaf 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 Cc: Jeff Fan Cc: Jiewen Yao Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Star Zeng Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek Tested-by: Jeff Fan --- .../Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c | 88 +++++++------------ 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c index 4bb848df52..a4fd9aff84 100644 --- a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe/AcpiTableProtocol.c @@ -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 , + // 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 , + // 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; -- 2.39.2