Hi On 10/04/2012 01:55 AM, Alex Hung wrote: > On 10/04/2012 12:30 AM, Brendan Donegan wrote: >> On 24/09/12 14:11, Brendan Donegan wrote: >>> On 20/09/12 16:57, Jeff Lane wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: Re: [Firmware-testing-team] Using FWTS for Certification >>>> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:27:37 +0100 >>>> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> >>>> On 19/09/12 16:19, Brendan Donegan wrote: >>>>> (I hope this is the right mailing list) >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> In Hardware Certification we have adopted FWTS for testing power >>>>> management (amongst other things), including S3, shutdown and >>>>> reboot. At >>>>> the moment it is giving us a few issues because FWTS is quite strict >>>>> about how it checks for kernel warnings and other issues. For Hardware >>>>> Certification we need to be less strict, but without ignoring any >>>>> problems which might be worthy of preventing the systems from being >>>>> certified. The purpose of this email is to kick off a dialogue about >>>>> which errors we really need to pay attention to for certification. >>>> >>>> Can you elaborate a little more about the features that are causing you >>>> problems and which ones are useful? Maybe some examples too? >>> I'm working my way through all the failures we've seen, but just to >>> get the ball rolling, I offer this one as an example: >>> >>> 1. 00054 summary High failures: 1 >>> 2. 00055 summary klog test, at 1 log line: 15 >>> 3. 00056 summary "HIGH Kernel message: [ 1918.822903] >>> [Firmware Bug]: ACPI: No _BQC method, cannot determine initial >>> brightness" > > _BQC is always interesting because ACPI spec does not explicitly say it > is required for brightness but only sort of hints it; however, Linux > kernel treats it as a bug and I don't think it it incorrect. We are > always suggestion ODM/OEM BIOS to include _BQC in order to fix this > error message. > >>> >>> >>> Seen when running reboot tests. I assume the net effect of this bug >>> would be to reset the brightness upon every boot? Or would it break >>> the brightness control completely? >> Here is another one we have come across on a Dell Optiplex XE during >> poweroff and reboot tests: >> >> FAILED [CRITICAL] KlogPciACPIOSCRequestFailedreturned: Test 1, CRITICAL >> Kernel message: [ 0.530647]pci0000:00: ACPI _OSC request failed >> (AE_NOT_FOUND), returned control mask: 0x1dADVICE: The _OSC method >> evaluation failed, which will result in disabling PCIe functionality, >> for example, the Linux kernel has to disable Active State Power >> Management (ASPM) which means that PCIe power management is not >> optimally configured. >> >> Can we get an idea of whether we can actually ignore these errors, why >> they are considered critical and start a discussion about what we can do >> to mitigate these failures? >> > > AE_NOT_FOUND happens when a "Name" (i.e. a variable) is declared cannot > be accessed. I have seen it a few times and this needs BIOS fixes most, > if not all, of time. > > More analysis can be done by reading dmesg and acpidump. > > This failure is critical because a ACPI method (i.e. _OSC in this case) > fails half way and and there may be function loss. This, however, may > not have stability impacts because kernel may treat it as "function not > supported" - i.e. _OSC never exists. > > For instance, _OSC is necessary for PCIE but not for PCI and the new > features in PCIE may be simply not enabled. Having say that, not all > PCIE-related driver spends on the evaluation of _OSC, and not all > features will be lost - this is a good example that BIOS only "suggests" > how OS behaves, not necessarily controls it.
Thanks Alex -- I think what Brendan is after here is more determinism in the failures to let the Cert Team know that a bug should be opened. It sounds like in this case, it may be as simple as changing an option in your BIOS, or even a BIOS issue. Perhaps we should think about a new classification of CRITIAL to make these easier to parse, CRITICAL-NOTE, or something similar where the issue should be noted but may not be a bug that can be fixed via the OS and may require a BIOS config change and/or update. Thoughts? >> Thanks, >> >>>> >>>> Colin >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team >>>>> Post to : [email protected] >>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team >>>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team >>>> Post to : [email protected] >>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team >>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
