| Message ID | 1348162622-7809-2-git-send-email-colin.king@canonical.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com> wrote: > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > --- > src/acpi/method/method.c | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 122 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/acpi/method/method.c b/src/acpi/method/method.c > index a460368..1cbbf75 100644 > --- a/src/acpi/method/method.c > +++ b/src/acpi/method/method.c > @@ -1274,6 +1274,121 @@ static int method_test_IRC(fwts_framework *fw) > "_IRC", NULL, 0, method_test_NULL_return, NULL); > } > > +/* > + * Section 7.3 OEM Supplied System-Level Control Methods > + */ > +static void method_test_Sx__return( > + fwts_framework *fw, > + char *name, > + ACPI_BUFFER *buf, > + ACPI_OBJECT *obj, > + void *private) > +{ > + bool failed = false; > + > + if (method_check_type(fw, name, buf, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE) != FWTS_OK) > + return; > + > + /* > + * The ACPI spec states it should have 1 integer, with the > + * values packed into each byte. However, nearly all BIOS > + * vendors don't do this, instead they return a package of > + * 2 or more integers with each integer lower byte containing > + * the data we are interested in. The kernel handles this > + * the non-compliant way. Doh. See drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxface.c > + * for the kernel implementation and also > + * source/components/hardware/hwxface.c in the reference ACPICA > + * sources. > + */ > + > + /* Something is really wrong if we don't have any elements in _Sx_ */ > + if (obj->Package.Count < 1) { > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_HIGH, "Method_SxElementCount", > + "The kernel expects a package of at least two " > + "integers, and %s only returned %d elements in " > + "the package.", name, obj->Package.Count); > + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); > + return; > + } > + > + /* > + * Oh dear, BIOS is conforming to the spec but won't work in > + * Linux > + */ > + if (obj->Package.Count == 1) { > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "Method_SxElementCount", > + "The ACPI specification states that %s should " > + "return a package of a single integer which " > + "this firmware does do. However, nearly all of the " > + "BIOS vendors return the values in the low 8 bits " > + "in a package of 2 to 4 integers which is not " > + "compliant with the specification BUT is the way " > + "that the ACPICA reference engine and the kernel " > + "expect. So, while this is conforming to the ACPI " > + "specification it will in fact not work in the " > + "Linux kernel.", name); > + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); > + return; > + } > + > + /* Yes, we really want integers! */ > + if ((obj->Package.Elements[0].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) || > + (obj->Package.Elements[0].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER)) { > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > + "Method_SxElementType", > + "%s returned a package that did not contain " > + "an integer.", name); > + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); > + return; > + } > + > + if (obj->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value & 0xffffff00) { > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > + "Method_SxElementValue", > + "%s package element 0 had upper 24 bits " > + "of bits that were non-zero.", name); > + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); > + failed = true; > + } > + > + if (obj->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value & 0xffffff00) { > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > + "Method_SxElementValue", > + "%s package element 1 had upper 24 bits " > + "of bits that were non-zero.", name); > + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); > + failed = true; > + } > + > + fwts_log_info(fw, "%s PM1a_CNT.SLP_TYP value: 0x%8.8llx", name, > + (unsigned long long)obj->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value); > + fwts_log_info(fw, "%s PM1b_CNT.SLP_TYP value: 0x%8.8llx", name, > + (unsigned long long)obj->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value); > + > + if (!failed) > + fwts_passed(fw, "%s correctly returned sane looking package.", > + name); > +} > + > +#define method_test_Sx_(name) \ > +static int method_test ## name(fwts_framework *fw) \ > +{ \ > + return method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, \ > + # name, NULL, 0, method_test_Sx__return, # name); \ > +} > + > +method_test_Sx_(_S0_) > +method_test_Sx_(_S1_) > +method_test_Sx_(_S2_) > +method_test_Sx_(_S3_) > +method_test_Sx_(_S4_) > +method_test_Sx_(_S5_) > + > +static int method_test_SWS(fwts_framework *fw) > +{ > + return method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, > + "_SWS", NULL, 0, method_test_integer_return, NULL); > +} > > /* > * Section 8.4 Declaring Processors > @@ -3219,14 +3334,13 @@ static fwts_framework_minor_test method_tests[] = { > { method_test_S4W, "Check _S4W (S4 Device Wake State)." }, > > /* Section 7.3 OEM-Supplied System-Level Control Methods */ > - /* { method_test_S0_, "Check _S0_ (S0 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S1_, "Check _S1_ (S1 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S2_, "Check _S2_ (S2 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S3_, "Check _S3_ (S3 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S4_, "Check _S4_ (S4 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_SWS, "Check _SWS (System Wake Source)." }, */ > + { method_test_S0_, "Check _S0_ (S0 System State)." }, > + { method_test_S1_, "Check _S1_ (S1 System State)." }, > + { method_test_S2_, "Check _S2_ (S2 System State)." }, > + { method_test_S3_, "Check _S3_ (S3 System State)." }, > + { method_test_S4_, "Check _S4_ (S4 System State)." }, > + { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, > + { method_test_SWS, "Check _SWS (System Wake Source)." }, > > /* Section 8.4 Declaring Processors */ > > -- > 1.7.10.4 > Acked-by: Keng-Yu Lin <kengyu@canonical.com>
On 09/21/2012 01:37 AM, Colin King wrote: > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > --- > src/acpi/method/method.c | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 122 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/acpi/method/method.c b/src/acpi/method/method.c > index a460368..1cbbf75 100644 > --- a/src/acpi/method/method.c > +++ b/src/acpi/method/method.c > @@ -1274,6 +1274,121 @@ static int method_test_IRC(fwts_framework *fw) > "_IRC", NULL, 0, method_test_NULL_return, NULL); > } > > +/* > + * Section 7.3 OEM Supplied System-Level Control Methods > + */ > +static void method_test_Sx__return( > + fwts_framework *fw, > + char *name, > + ACPI_BUFFER *buf, > + ACPI_OBJECT *obj, > + void *private) > +{ > + bool failed = false; > + > + if (method_check_type(fw, name, buf, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE) != FWTS_OK) > + return; > + > + /* > + * The ACPI spec states it should have 1 integer, with the > + * values packed into each byte. However, nearly all BIOS > + * vendors don't do this, instead they return a package of > + * 2 or more integers with each integer lower byte containing > + * the data we are interested in. The kernel handles this > + * the non-compliant way. Doh. See drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxface.c > + * for the kernel implementation and also > + * source/components/hardware/hwxface.c in the reference ACPICA > + * sources. > + */ > + I never notice this until you brought this up. So None of the BIOS or Linux is 100% ACPI-compliant. May it be the Windows starts this mistake? > + /* Something is really wrong if we don't have any elements in _Sx_ */ > + if (obj->Package.Count < 1) { > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_HIGH, "Method_SxElementCount", > + "The kernel expects a package of at least two " > + "integers, and %s only returned %d elements in " > + "the package.", name, obj->Package.Count); > + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); > + return; > + } > + > + /* > + * Oh dear, BIOS is conforming to the spec but won't work in > + * Linux > + */ > + if (obj->Package.Count == 1) { > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "Method_SxElementCount", > + "The ACPI specification states that %s should " > + "return a package of a single integer which " > + "this firmware does do. However, nearly all of the " > + "BIOS vendors return the values in the low 8 bits " > + "in a package of 2 to 4 integers which is not " > + "compliant with the specification BUT is the way " > + "that the ACPICA reference engine and the kernel " > + "expect. So, while this is conforming to the ACPI " > + "specification it will in fact not work in the " > + "Linux kernel.", name); > + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); > + return; > + } > + > + /* Yes, we really want integers! */ > + if ((obj->Package.Elements[0].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) || > + (obj->Package.Elements[0].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER)) { > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > + "Method_SxElementType", > + "%s returned a package that did not contain " > + "an integer.", name); > + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); > + return; > + } > + > + if (obj->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value & 0xffffff00) { > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > + "Method_SxElementValue", > + "%s package element 0 had upper 24 bits " > + "of bits that were non-zero.", name); > + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); > + failed = true; > + } > + > + if (obj->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value & 0xffffff00) { > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > + "Method_SxElementValue", > + "%s package element 1 had upper 24 bits " > + "of bits that were non-zero.", name); > + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); > + failed = true; > + } > + > + fwts_log_info(fw, "%s PM1a_CNT.SLP_TYP value: 0x%8.8llx", name, > + (unsigned long long)obj->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value); > + fwts_log_info(fw, "%s PM1b_CNT.SLP_TYP value: 0x%8.8llx", name, > + (unsigned long long)obj->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value); > + > + if (!failed) > + fwts_passed(fw, "%s correctly returned sane looking package.", > + name); > +} > + > +#define method_test_Sx_(name) \ > +static int method_test ## name(fwts_framework *fw) \ > +{ \ > + return method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, \ > + # name, NULL, 0, method_test_Sx__return, # name); \ > +} > + > +method_test_Sx_(_S0_) > +method_test_Sx_(_S1_) > +method_test_Sx_(_S2_) > +method_test_Sx_(_S3_) > +method_test_Sx_(_S4_) > +method_test_Sx_(_S5_) > + > +static int method_test_SWS(fwts_framework *fw) > +{ > + return method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, > + "_SWS", NULL, 0, method_test_integer_return, NULL); > +} > > /* > * Section 8.4 Declaring Processors > @@ -3219,14 +3334,13 @@ static fwts_framework_minor_test method_tests[] = { > { method_test_S4W, "Check _S4W (S4 Device Wake State)." }, > > /* Section 7.3 OEM-Supplied System-Level Control Methods */ > - /* { method_test_S0_, "Check _S0_ (S0 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S1_, "Check _S1_ (S1 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S2_, "Check _S2_ (S2 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S3_, "Check _S3_ (S3 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S4_, "Check _S4_ (S4 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, */ > - /* { method_test_SWS, "Check _SWS (System Wake Source)." }, */ > + { method_test_S0_, "Check _S0_ (S0 System State)." }, > + { method_test_S1_, "Check _S1_ (S1 System State)." }, > + { method_test_S2_, "Check _S2_ (S2 System State)." }, > + { method_test_S3_, "Check _S3_ (S3 System State)." }, > + { method_test_S4_, "Check _S4_ (S4 System State)." }, > + { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, > + { method_test_SWS, "Check _SWS (System Wake Source)." }, > > /* Section 8.4 Declaring Processors */ > > Acked-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@canonical.com>
On 27/09/12 10:44, Alex Hung wrote: > On 09/21/2012 01:37 AM, Colin King wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >> --- >> src/acpi/method/method.c | 130 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 122 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/acpi/method/method.c b/src/acpi/method/method.c >> index a460368..1cbbf75 100644 >> --- a/src/acpi/method/method.c >> +++ b/src/acpi/method/method.c >> @@ -1274,6 +1274,121 @@ static int method_test_IRC(fwts_framework *fw) >> "_IRC", NULL, 0, method_test_NULL_return, NULL); >> } >> >> +/* >> + * Section 7.3 OEM Supplied System-Level Control Methods >> + */ >> +static void method_test_Sx__return( >> + fwts_framework *fw, >> + char *name, >> + ACPI_BUFFER *buf, >> + ACPI_OBJECT *obj, >> + void *private) >> +{ >> + bool failed = false; >> + >> + if (method_check_type(fw, name, buf, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE) != FWTS_OK) >> + return; >> + >> + /* >> + * The ACPI spec states it should have 1 integer, with the >> + * values packed into each byte. However, nearly all BIOS >> + * vendors don't do this, instead they return a package of >> + * 2 or more integers with each integer lower byte containing >> + * the data we are interested in. The kernel handles this >> + * the non-compliant way. Doh. See drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxface.c >> + * for the kernel implementation and also >> + * source/components/hardware/hwxface.c in the reference ACPICA >> + * sources. >> + */ >> + > > I never notice this until you brought this up. So None of the BIOS or > Linux is 100% ACPI-compliant. May it be the Windows starts this mistake? > So, when I wrote this test I discovered all the ACPI tables I have fail against the spec, so I double checked the spec and then looked at ACPICA and this reference code also implements the non-standard way of handling it and has the comment: /* * The package must have at least two elements. NOTE (March 2005): This * goes against the current ACPI spec which defines this object as a * package with one encoded DWORD element. However, existing practice * by BIOS vendors seems to be to have 2 or more elements, at least * one per sleep type (A/B). */ ..it looks like Microsoft of BIOS vendors agreed to deviate from the spec here. *Sigh*. >> + /* Something is really wrong if we don't have any elements in >> _Sx_ */ >> + if (obj->Package.Count < 1) { >> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_HIGH, "Method_SxElementCount", >> + "The kernel expects a package of at least two " >> + "integers, and %s only returned %d elements in " >> + "the package.", name, obj->Package.Count); >> + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + /* >> + * Oh dear, BIOS is conforming to the spec but won't work in >> + * Linux >> + */ >> + if (obj->Package.Count == 1) { >> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "Method_SxElementCount", >> + "The ACPI specification states that %s should " >> + "return a package of a single integer which " >> + "this firmware does do. However, nearly all of the " >> + "BIOS vendors return the values in the low 8 bits " >> + "in a package of 2 to 4 integers which is not " >> + "compliant with the specification BUT is the way " >> + "that the ACPICA reference engine and the kernel " >> + "expect. So, while this is conforming to the ACPI " >> + "specification it will in fact not work in the " >> + "Linux kernel.", name); >> + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + /* Yes, we really want integers! */ >> + if ((obj->Package.Elements[0].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) || >> + (obj->Package.Elements[0].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER)) { >> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, >> + "Method_SxElementType", >> + "%s returned a package that did not contain " >> + "an integer.", name); >> + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + if (obj->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value & 0xffffff00) { >> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, >> + "Method_SxElementValue", >> + "%s package element 0 had upper 24 bits " >> + "of bits that were non-zero.", name); >> + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); >> + failed = true; >> + } >> + >> + if (obj->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value & 0xffffff00) { >> + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, >> + "Method_SxElementValue", >> + "%s package element 1 had upper 24 bits " >> + "of bits that were non-zero.", name); >> + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); >> + failed = true; >> + } >> + >> + fwts_log_info(fw, "%s PM1a_CNT.SLP_TYP value: 0x%8.8llx", name, >> + (unsigned long long)obj->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value); >> + fwts_log_info(fw, "%s PM1b_CNT.SLP_TYP value: 0x%8.8llx", name, >> + (unsigned long long)obj->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value); >> + >> + if (!failed) >> + fwts_passed(fw, "%s correctly returned sane looking package.", >> + name); >> +} >> + >> +#define method_test_Sx_(name) \ >> +static int method_test ## name(fwts_framework *fw) \ >> +{ \ >> + return method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, \ >> + # name, NULL, 0, method_test_Sx__return, # name); \ >> +} >> + >> +method_test_Sx_(_S0_) >> +method_test_Sx_(_S1_) >> +method_test_Sx_(_S2_) >> +method_test_Sx_(_S3_) >> +method_test_Sx_(_S4_) >> +method_test_Sx_(_S5_) >> + >> +static int method_test_SWS(fwts_framework *fw) >> +{ >> + return method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, >> + "_SWS", NULL, 0, method_test_integer_return, NULL); >> +} >> >> /* >> * Section 8.4 Declaring Processors >> @@ -3219,14 +3334,13 @@ static fwts_framework_minor_test >> method_tests[] = { >> { method_test_S4W, "Check _S4W (S4 Device Wake State)." }, >> >> /* Section 7.3 OEM-Supplied System-Level Control Methods */ >> - /* { method_test_S0_, "Check _S0_ (S0 System State)." }, */ >> - /* { method_test_S1_, "Check _S1_ (S1 System State)." }, */ >> - /* { method_test_S2_, "Check _S2_ (S2 System State)." }, */ >> - /* { method_test_S3_, "Check _S3_ (S3 System State)." }, */ >> - /* { method_test_S4_, "Check _S4_ (S4 System State)." }, */ >> - /* { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, */ >> - /* { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, */ >> - /* { method_test_SWS, "Check _SWS (System Wake Source)." }, */ >> + { method_test_S0_, "Check _S0_ (S0 System State)." }, >> + { method_test_S1_, "Check _S1_ (S1 System State)." }, >> + { method_test_S2_, "Check _S2_ (S2 System State)." }, >> + { method_test_S3_, "Check _S3_ (S3 System State)." }, >> + { method_test_S4_, "Check _S4_ (S4 System State)." }, >> + { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, >> + { method_test_SWS, "Check _SWS (System Wake Source)." }, >> >> /* Section 8.4 Declaring Processors */ >> >> > > Acked-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@canonical.com> > >
diff --git a/src/acpi/method/method.c b/src/acpi/method/method.c index a460368..1cbbf75 100644 --- a/src/acpi/method/method.c +++ b/src/acpi/method/method.c @@ -1274,6 +1274,121 @@ static int method_test_IRC(fwts_framework *fw) "_IRC", NULL, 0, method_test_NULL_return, NULL); } +/* + * Section 7.3 OEM Supplied System-Level Control Methods + */ +static void method_test_Sx__return( + fwts_framework *fw, + char *name, + ACPI_BUFFER *buf, + ACPI_OBJECT *obj, + void *private) +{ + bool failed = false; + + if (method_check_type(fw, name, buf, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE) != FWTS_OK) + return; + + /* + * The ACPI spec states it should have 1 integer, with the + * values packed into each byte. However, nearly all BIOS + * vendors don't do this, instead they return a package of + * 2 or more integers with each integer lower byte containing + * the data we are interested in. The kernel handles this + * the non-compliant way. Doh. See drivers/acpi/acpica/hwxface.c + * for the kernel implementation and also + * source/components/hardware/hwxface.c in the reference ACPICA + * sources. + */ + + /* Something is really wrong if we don't have any elements in _Sx_ */ + if (obj->Package.Count < 1) { + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_HIGH, "Method_SxElementCount", + "The kernel expects a package of at least two " + "integers, and %s only returned %d elements in " + "the package.", name, obj->Package.Count); + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); + return; + } + + /* + * Oh dear, BIOS is conforming to the spec but won't work in + * Linux + */ + if (obj->Package.Count == 1) { + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "Method_SxElementCount", + "The ACPI specification states that %s should " + "return a package of a single integer which " + "this firmware does do. However, nearly all of the " + "BIOS vendors return the values in the low 8 bits " + "in a package of 2 to 4 integers which is not " + "compliant with the specification BUT is the way " + "that the ACPICA reference engine and the kernel " + "expect. So, while this is conforming to the ACPI " + "specification it will in fact not work in the " + "Linux kernel.", name); + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); + return; + } + + /* Yes, we really want integers! */ + if ((obj->Package.Elements[0].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) || + (obj->Package.Elements[0].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER)) { + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, + "Method_SxElementType", + "%s returned a package that did not contain " + "an integer.", name); + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); + return; + } + + if (obj->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value & 0xffffff00) { + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, + "Method_SxElementValue", + "%s package element 0 had upper 24 bits " + "of bits that were non-zero.", name); + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); + failed = true; + } + + if (obj->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value & 0xffffff00) { + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, + "Method_SxElementValue", + "%s package element 1 had upper 24 bits " + "of bits that were non-zero.", name); + fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN); + failed = true; + } + + fwts_log_info(fw, "%s PM1a_CNT.SLP_TYP value: 0x%8.8llx", name, + (unsigned long long)obj->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value); + fwts_log_info(fw, "%s PM1b_CNT.SLP_TYP value: 0x%8.8llx", name, + (unsigned long long)obj->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value); + + if (!failed) + fwts_passed(fw, "%s correctly returned sane looking package.", + name); +} + +#define method_test_Sx_(name) \ +static int method_test ## name(fwts_framework *fw) \ +{ \ + return method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, \ + # name, NULL, 0, method_test_Sx__return, # name); \ +} + +method_test_Sx_(_S0_) +method_test_Sx_(_S1_) +method_test_Sx_(_S2_) +method_test_Sx_(_S3_) +method_test_Sx_(_S4_) +method_test_Sx_(_S5_) + +static int method_test_SWS(fwts_framework *fw) +{ + return method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, + "_SWS", NULL, 0, method_test_integer_return, NULL); +} /* * Section 8.4 Declaring Processors @@ -3219,14 +3334,13 @@ static fwts_framework_minor_test method_tests[] = { { method_test_S4W, "Check _S4W (S4 Device Wake State)." }, /* Section 7.3 OEM-Supplied System-Level Control Methods */ - /* { method_test_S0_, "Check _S0_ (S0 System State)." }, */ - /* { method_test_S1_, "Check _S1_ (S1 System State)." }, */ - /* { method_test_S2_, "Check _S2_ (S2 System State)." }, */ - /* { method_test_S3_, "Check _S3_ (S3 System State)." }, */ - /* { method_test_S4_, "Check _S4_ (S4 System State)." }, */ - /* { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, */ - /* { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, */ - /* { method_test_SWS, "Check _SWS (System Wake Source)." }, */ + { method_test_S0_, "Check _S0_ (S0 System State)." }, + { method_test_S1_, "Check _S1_ (S1 System State)." }, + { method_test_S2_, "Check _S2_ (S2 System State)." }, + { method_test_S3_, "Check _S3_ (S3 System State)." }, + { method_test_S4_, "Check _S4_ (S4 System State)." }, + { method_test_S5_, "Check _S5_ (S5 System State)." }, + { method_test_SWS, "Check _SWS (System Wake Source)." }, /* Section 8.4 Declaring Processors */