[PATCH] acpi: method: relax mandatory requirement for _PTS, _TTS and _WAK (LP: #1296737)

[Colin Ian King]

On 25/03/14 03:13, Alex Hung wrote:
> On 03/24/2014 09:59 PM, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com>
>>
>> The kernel does not throw any errors if these controls don't exist,
>> so we probably should relax the method test so it does not report
>> a failure if these controls don't exist.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com>
>> ---
>>  src/acpi/method/method.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/acpi/method/method.c b/src/acpi/method/method.c
>> index 6e6c5c2..377d2ef 100644
>> --- a/src/acpi/method/method.c
>> +++ b/src/acpi/method/method.c
>> @@ -4305,7 +4305,7 @@ static int method_test_PTS(fwts_framework *fw)
>>  
>>  		fwts_log_info(fw, "Test _PTS(%d).", i);
>>  
>> -		if (method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_MANDITORY, "_PTS", arg, 1,
>> +		if (method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, "_PTS", arg, 1,
>>  			method_test_NULL_return, NULL) == FWTS_NOT_EXIST) {
>>  			fwts_advice(fw,
>>  				"Could not find _PTS. This method provides a "
>> @@ -4336,7 +4336,7 @@ static int method_test_TTS(fwts_framework *fw)
>>  			fwts_log_info(fw,
>>  				"Test _TTS(%d) Transition To State S%d.", i, i);
>>  
>> -			if (method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_MANDITORY,
>> +			if (method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL,
>>  				"_TTS", arg, 1, method_test_NULL_return,
>>  				NULL) == FWTS_NOT_EXIST)
>>  				break;
>> @@ -4412,7 +4412,7 @@ static int method_test_WAK(fwts_framework *fw)
>>  		arg[0].Type = ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER;
>>  		arg[0].Integer.Value = i;
>>  		fwts_log_info(fw, "Test _WAK(%d) System Wake, State S%d.", i, i);
>> -		if (method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_MANDITORY, "_WAK", arg, 1,
>> +		if (method_evaluate_method(fw, METHOD_OPTIONAL, "_WAK", arg, 1,
>>  			method_test_WAK_return, &i) == FWTS_NOT_EXIST)
>>  			break;
>>  		fwts_log_nl(fw);
>>
> 
> 
> This may not the best idea since they are needed according to ACPI spec.

OK, can you advise me where abouts in the spec? I can then pass that
back to the party that requested I tweaked this.

> Changing them to optional makes it kernel-dependent and is not exactly
> testing firmware.

+1

> 
> Will it be better to change the advise or lower the severity so users
> know the impacts are minimal?
> 

How about I add some contextual advice on this instead explaining what
the kernel does in these cases?

Colin