[PATCH 2/2] acpi: method: add _PSS test

[Alex Hung]

On 04/18/2012 07:41 PM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King<colin.king at canonical.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King<colin.king at canonical.com>
> ---
>   src/acpi/method/method.c |  106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 104 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/acpi/method/method.c b/src/acpi/method/method.c
> index 6797868..fae4b31 100644
> --- a/src/acpi/method/method.c
> +++ b/src/acpi/method/method.c
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@
>    * _PSD  8.4.4.5	N
>    * _PSL  11.4.8		N
>    * _PSR  10.3.1		Y
> - * _PSS  8.4.4.2	N
> + * _PSS  8.4.4.2	Y
>    * _PSV  11.4.9		Y
>    * _PSW  7.2.12		Y
>    * _PTC  8.4.3.1	N
> @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ static int method_name_check(fwts_framework *fw)
>   	int failed = 0;
>
>    	if ((methods = fwts_method_get_names()) != NULL) {
> -		fwts_log_info(fw, "Found %d Methods\n", methods->len);
> +		fwts_log_info(fw, "Found %d Objects\n", methods->len);
>
>   		fwts_list_foreach(item, methods) {
>   			char *ptr;
> @@ -1846,6 +1846,105 @@ static int method_test_UID(fwts_framework *fw)
>   }
>
>
> +/* Section 8.4 */
> +
> +static void method_test_PSS_return(fwts_framework *fw, char *name, ACPI_BUFFER *buf, ACPI_OBJECT *obj, void *private)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +	bool failed = false;
> +	uint32_t max_freq = 0;
> +	uint32_t prev_power = 0;
> +
> +	if (method_check_type(fw, name, buf, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE) != FWTS_OK)
> +		return;
> +
> +	/* Something is really wrong if we don't have any elements in _PSS */
> +	if (obj->Package.Count<  1) {
> +		fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "Method_PSSElementCount",
> +			"_PSS should return package of at least 1 element, "
> +			"got %d elements instead.",
> +			obj->Package.Count);
> +		fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	for (i=0; i<  obj->Package.Count; i++) {
> +		ACPI_OBJECT *pstate;
> +
> +		if (obj->Package.Elements[i].Type != ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE) {
> +			fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "Method_PSSElementType",
> +			"_PSS package element %d was not a package.", i);
> +			fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN);
> +			failed = true;
> +			continue;	/* Skip processing sub-package */
> +		}
> +
> +		pstate =&obj->Package.Elements[i];
> +		if (pstate->Package.Count != 6) {
> +			fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "Method_PSSSubPackageElementCount",
> +				"_PSS P-State sub-package %d was expected to have "
> +				"6 elements, got %d elements instead.",
> +				i, obj->Package.Count);
> +			fwts_tag_failed(fw, FWTS_TAG_ACPI_METHOD_RETURN);
> +			failed = true;
> +			continue;	/* Skip processing sub-package */
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Elements need to be all ACPI integer types */
> +		if ((pstate->Package.Elements[0].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) ||
> +		    (pstate->Package.Elements[1].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) ||
> +		    (pstate->Package.Elements[2].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) ||
> +		    (pstate->Package.Elements[3].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) ||
> +		    (pstate->Package.Elements[4].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) ||
> +		    (pstate->Package.Elements[5].Type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER)) {
> +			fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "Method_PSSSubPackageElementType",
> +				"_PSS P-State sub-package %d was expected to have "
> +				"6 Integer elements but didn't", i);
> +			failed = true;
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
> +		fwts_log_info(fw, "PState %d: CPU %ld Mhz, %lu mW, latency %lu us, bus master latency %lu us.",
> +			i,
> +			(unsigned long)pstate->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value,
> +			(unsigned long)pstate->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value,
> +			(unsigned long)pstate->Package.Elements[2].Integer.Value,
> +			(unsigned long)pstate->Package.Elements[3].Integer.Value);
> +
> +		if (max_freq<  pstate->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value)
> +			max_freq = pstate->Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value;
max_freq is supposed to be in the first package, is this if-statement 
necessary?

Do you intend to check max_freq with all frequencies in following 
packages in case the packages are not in descending order?

i.e
if (max_freq <  pstate->Package.Elements[i].Integer.Value)
	max_freq = pstate->Package.Elements[i].Integer.Value;

> +
> +		/* Sanity check descending power dissipation levels */
> +		if ((i>  0)&&  (prev_power != 0)&&
> +		    (pstate->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value>= prev_power)) {
> +			fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "Method_PSSSubPackagePowerNotDecending",
> +				"_PSS P-State sub-package %d has a larger power dissipation "
> +				"setting than the previous sub-package.", i);
> +			fwts_advice(fw, "_PSS P-States must be ordered in decending order of "
> +				"power dissipation, so that the zero'th entry has the highest "
> +				"power dissipation level and the Nth has the lowest.");
> +			failed = true;
> +		}
> +		prev_power = pstate->Package.Elements[1].Integer.Value;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (max_freq<  1000) {
Will it be better if we use
"if (!failed && (max_freq = Package.Elements[0].Integer.Value) < 1000)"
and "max_freq" needs not be set in the for-loop?

If the sanity check fails in for-loop, may it not be necessary to check 
max_freq?

> +		fwts_warning(fw,
> +			"Maximum CPU frequency is %dHz and this is low for "
> +			"a modern processor. This may indicate the _PSS PStates "
> +			"are incorrect\n", max_freq);
> +		failed = true;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!failed)
> +		fwts_passed(fw, "_PSS correctly returned sane looking package.");
> +}
> +
> +static int method_test_PSS(fwts_framework *fw)
> +{
> +	return method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, "_PSS", NULL, 0, method_test_PSS_return, NULL);
> +}
> +
>   /* Tests */
>
>   static fwts_framework_minor_test method_tests[] = {
> @@ -1973,6 +2072,9 @@ static fwts_framework_minor_test method_tests[] = {
>   	{ method_test_ON,  "Check _ON  (Set resource on)." },
>   	{ method_test_OFF, "Check _OFF (Set resource off)." },
>
> +	/* Section 8.4 */
> +	{ method_test_PSS, "Check _PSS (Performance Supported States)." },
> +
>   	/* Appendix B, ACPI Extensions for Display Adapters */
>
>   	{ method_test_DOS, "Check _DOS (Enable/Disable Output Switching)." },