forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
ACPI: Document _OSI and _REV for Linux BIOS writers
Based on a recent session at the Linux Plumber's Conference, we need to be more clear about how a BIOS should use _OSI to properly support Linux. Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
Len Brown
Rafael J. Wysocki
parent
e5517c2a5a
commit
bc18461816
187
Documentation/acpi/osi.txt
Normal file
187
Documentation/acpi/osi.txt
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
|
|||
ACPI _OSI and _REV methods
|
||||
--------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
An ACPI BIOS can use the "Operating System Interfaces" method (_OSI)
|
||||
to find out what the operating system supports. Eg. If BIOS
|
||||
AML code includes _OSI("XYZ"), the kernel's AML interpreter
|
||||
can evaluate that method, look to see if it supports 'XYZ'
|
||||
and answer YES or NO to the BIOS.
|
||||
|
||||
The ACPI _REV method returns the "Revision of the ACPI specification
|
||||
that OSPM supports"
|
||||
|
||||
This document explains how and why the BIOS and Linux should use these methods.
|
||||
It also explains how and why they are widely misused.
|
||||
|
||||
How to use _OSI
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
Linux runs on two groups of machines -- those that are tested by the OEM
|
||||
to be compatible with Linux, and those that were never tested with Linux,
|
||||
but where Linux was installed to replace the original OS (Windows or OSX).
|
||||
|
||||
The larger group is the systems tested to run only Windows. Not only that,
|
||||
but many were tested to run with just one specific version of Windows.
|
||||
So even though the BIOS may use _OSI to query what version of Windows is running,
|
||||
only a single path through the BIOS has actually been tested.
|
||||
Experience shows that taking untested paths through the BIOS
|
||||
exposes Linux to an entire category of BIOS bugs.
|
||||
For this reason, Linux _OSI defaults must continue to claim compatibility
|
||||
with all versions of Windows.
|
||||
|
||||
But Linux isn't actually compatible with Windows, and the Linux community
|
||||
has also been hurt with regressions when Linux adds the latest version of
|
||||
Windows to its list of _OSI strings. So it is possible that additional strings
|
||||
will be more thoroughly vetted before shipping upstream in the future.
|
||||
But it is likely that they will all eventually be added.
|
||||
|
||||
What should an OEM do if they want to support Linux and Windows
|
||||
using the same BIOS image? Often they need to do something different
|
||||
for Linux to deal with how Linux is different from Windows.
|
||||
Here the BIOS should ask exactly what it wants to know:
|
||||
|
||||
_OSI("Linux-OEM-my_interface_name")
|
||||
where 'OEM' is needed if this is an OEM-specific hook,
|
||||
and 'my_interface_name' describes the hook, which could be a
|
||||
quirk, a bug, or a bug-fix.
|
||||
|
||||
In addition, the OEM should send a patch to upstream Linux
|
||||
via the linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org mailing list. When that patch
|
||||
is checked into Linux, the OS will answer "YES" when the BIOS
|
||||
on the OEM's system uses _OSI to ask if the interface is supported
|
||||
by the OS. Linux distributors can back-port that patch for Linux
|
||||
pre-installs, and it will be included by all distributions that
|
||||
re-base to upstream. If the distribution can not update the kernel binary,
|
||||
they can also add an acpi_osi=Linux-OEM-my_interface_name
|
||||
cmdline parameter to the boot loader, as needed.
|
||||
|
||||
If the string refers to a feature where the upstream kernel
|
||||
eventually grows support, a patch should be sent to remove
|
||||
the string when that support is added to the kernel.
|
||||
|
||||
That was easy. Read on, to find out how to do it wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
Before _OSI, there was _OS
|
||||
--------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
ACPI 1.0 specified "_OS" as an
|
||||
"object that evaluates to a string that identifies the operating system."
|
||||
|
||||
The ACPI BIOS flow would include an evaluation of _OS, and the AML
|
||||
interpreter in the kernel would return to it a string identifying the OS:
|
||||
|
||||
Windows 98, SE: "Microsoft Windows"
|
||||
Windows ME: "Microsoft WindowsME:Millenium Edition"
|
||||
Windows NT: "Microsoft Windows NT"
|
||||
|
||||
The idea was on a platform tasked with running multiple OS's,
|
||||
the BIOS could use _OS to enable devices that an OS
|
||||
might support, or enable quirks or bug workarounds
|
||||
necessary to make the platform compatible with that pre-existing OS.
|
||||
|
||||
But _OS had fundamental problems. First, the BIOS needed to know the name
|
||||
of every possible version of the OS that would run on it, and needed to know
|
||||
all the quirks of those OS's. Certainly it would make more sense
|
||||
for the BIOS to ask *specific* things of the OS, such
|
||||
"do you support a specific interface", and thus in ACPI 3.0,
|
||||
_OSI was born to replace _OS.
|
||||
|
||||
_OS was abandoned, though even today, many BIOS look for
|
||||
_OS "Microsoft Windows NT", though it seems somewhat far-fetched
|
||||
that anybody would install those old operating systems
|
||||
over what came with the machine.
|
||||
|
||||
Linux answers "Microsoft Windows NT" to please that BIOS idiom.
|
||||
That is the *only* viable strategy, as that is what modern Windows does,
|
||||
and so doing otherwise could steer the BIOS down an untested path.
|
||||
|
||||
_OSI is born, and immediately misused
|
||||
--------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
With _OSI, the *BIOS* provides the string describing an interface,
|
||||
and asks the OS: "YES/NO, are you compatible with this interface?"
|
||||
|
||||
eg. _OSI("3.0 Thermal Model") would return TRUE if the OS knows how
|
||||
to deal with the thermal extensions made to the ACPI 3.0 specification.
|
||||
An old OS that doesn't know about those extensions would answer FALSE,
|
||||
and a new OS may be able to return TRUE.
|
||||
|
||||
For an OS-specific interface, the ACPI spec said that the BIOS and the OS
|
||||
were to agree on a string of the form such as "Windows-interface_name".
|
||||
|
||||
But two bad things happened. First, the Windows ecosystem used _OSI
|
||||
not as designed, but as a direct replacement for _OS -- identifying
|
||||
the OS version, rather than an OS supported interface. Indeed, right
|
||||
from the start, the ACPI 3.0 spec itself codified this misuse
|
||||
in example code using _OSI("Windows 2001").
|
||||
|
||||
This misuse was adopted and continues today.
|
||||
|
||||
Linux had no choice but to also return TRUE to _OSI("Windows 2001")
|
||||
and its successors. To do otherwise would virtually guarantee breaking
|
||||
a BIOS that has been tested only with that _OSI returning TRUE.
|
||||
|
||||
This strategy is problematic, as Linux is never completely compatible with
|
||||
the latest version of Windows, and sometimes it takes more than a year
|
||||
to iron out incompatibilities.
|
||||
|
||||
Not to be out-done, the Linux community made things worse by returning TRUE
|
||||
to _OSI("Linux"). Doing so is even worse than the Windows misuse
|
||||
of _OSI, as "Linux" does not even contain any version information.
|
||||
_OSI("Linux") led to some BIOS' malfunctioning due to BIOS writer's
|
||||
using it in untested BIOS flows. But some OEM's used _OSI("Linux")
|
||||
in tested flows to support real Linux features. In 2009, Linux
|
||||
removed _OSI("Linux"), and added a cmdline parameter to restore it
|
||||
for legacy systems still needed it. Further a BIOS_BUG warning prints
|
||||
for all BIOS's that invoke it.
|
||||
|
||||
No BIOS should use _OSI("Linux").
|
||||
|
||||
The result is a strategy for Linux to maximize compatibility with
|
||||
ACPI BIOS that are tested on Windows machines. There is a real risk
|
||||
of over-stating that compatibility; but the alternative has often been
|
||||
catastrophic failure resulting from the BIOS taking paths that
|
||||
were never validated under *any* OS.
|
||||
|
||||
Do not use _REV
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
Since _OSI("Linux") went away, some BIOS writers used _REV
|
||||
to support Linux and Windows differences in the same BIOS.
|
||||
|
||||
_REV was defined in ACPI 1.0 to return the version of ACPI
|
||||
supported by the OS and the OS AML interpreter.
|
||||
|
||||
Modern Windows returns _REV = 2. Linux used ACPI_CA_SUPPORT_LEVEL,
|
||||
which would increment, based on the version of the spec supported.
|
||||
|
||||
Unfortunately, _REV was also misused. eg. some BIOS would check
|
||||
for _REV = 3, and do something for Linux, but when Linux returned
|
||||
_REV = 4, that support broke.
|
||||
|
||||
In response to this problem, Linux returns _REV = 2 always,
|
||||
from mid-2015 onward. The ACPI specification will also be updated
|
||||
to reflect that _REV is deprecated, and always returns 2.
|
||||
|
||||
Apple Mac and _OSI("Darwin")
|
||||
----------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
On Apple's Mac platforms, the ACPI BIOS invokes _OSI("Darwin")
|
||||
to determine if the machine is running Apple OSX.
|
||||
|
||||
Like Linux's _OSI("*Windows*") strategy, Linux defaults to
|
||||
answering YES to _OSI("Darwin") to enable full access
|
||||
to the hardware and validated BIOS paths seen by OSX.
|
||||
Just like on Windows-tested platforms, this strategy has risks.
|
||||
|
||||
Starting in Linux-3.18, the kernel answered YES to _OSI("Darwin")
|
||||
for the purpose of enabling Mac Thunderbolt support. Further,
|
||||
if the kernel noticed _OSI("Darwin") being invoked, it additionally
|
||||
disabled all _OSI("*Windows*") to keep poorly written Mac BIOS
|
||||
from going down untested combinations of paths.
|
||||
|
||||
The Linux-3.18 change in default caused power regressions on Mac
|
||||
laptops, and the 3.18 implementation did not allow changing
|
||||
the default via cmdline "acpi_osi=!Darwin". Linux-4.7 fixed
|
||||
the ability to use acpi_osi=!Darwin as a workaround, and
|
||||
we hope to see Mac Thunderbolt power management support in Linux-4.11.
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user