From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752417AbcEZQ06 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 26 May 2016 12:26:58 -0400
Received: from prv-mh.provo.novell.com ([137.65.248.74]:56107 "EHLO
	prv-mh.provo.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750906AbcEZQ05 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;groupwise-linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org:7:2>);
	Thu, 26 May 2016 12:26:57 -0400
Message-Id: <574731DD02000078000E92FC@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.2.0 
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:26:53 -0600
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Cc: <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, <zetalog@gmail.com>, <len.brown@intel.com>,
        <lv.zheng@intel.com>, <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        <robert.moore@intel.com>, <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
        <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/13] ACPICA: Hardware: Add optimized access
 bit width support
References: <cover.1462331120.git.lv.zheng@intel.com>
 <cover.1462418912.git.lv.zheng@intel.com>
 <fe932d47355c652fa7114c369a427b44626da92a.1462418912.git.lv.zheng@intel.com>
 <5745FA2C.8020303@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <5745FA2C.8020303@oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

>>> Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> 05/25/16 9:17 PM >>>
>On 05/05/2016 12:58 AM, Lv Zheng wrote:
>> +static u8
>> +acpi_hw_get_access_bit_width(struct acpi_generic_address *reg, u8 max_bit_width)
>> +{
>> +    u64 address;
>> +
>> +    if (!reg->access_width) {
>> +        /*
>> +         * Detect old register descriptors where only the bit_width field
>> +         * makes senses. The target address is copied to handle possible
>> +         * alignment issues.
>> +         */
>> +        ACPI_MOVE_64_TO_64(&address, &reg->address);
>> +        if (!reg->bit_offset && reg->bit_width &&
>> +            ACPI_IS_POWER_OF_TWO(reg->bit_width) &&
>> +            ACPI_IS_ALIGNED(reg->bit_width, 8) &&
>> +            ACPI_IS_ALIGNED(address, reg->bit_width)) {
>> +            return (reg->bit_width);
>> +        } else {
>> +            if (reg->space_id == ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO) {
>> +                return (32);
>
>This (together with "... Add access_width/bit_offset support in
>acpi_hw_write") breaks Xen guests using older QEMU which doesn't support
>4-byte IO accesses.
>
>Why not return "reg->bit_width?:max_bit_width" ? This will preserve
>original behavior.

Did you figure out why we get here in the first place, instead of taking the
first "return"? I.e. isn't the issue the apparently wrong use of the second
ACPI_IS_ALIGNED() above? Afaict it ought to be
ACPI_IS_ALIGNED(address, reg->bit_width / 8)...

Jan