RE: ACPI WARNING: atdrivers/acpi/tables/tbfadt.c:348acpi_tb_create_local_fadt+0x147/0x2f4()

[Moore, Robert]

>shouldn't the v2 ones be sanity-checked
>against the v1 ones and then the specified widths be used as intended
>by the spec?

We are still investigating this. Suffice to say that we have not
encountered any hardware that actually uses different values. One of our
BIOS guys is going to determine what windows does with the bit_width
fields. At the same time, we will go ahead and figure out how it handles
the case when the v1 and v2(X) fields are in conflict.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:43 AM
>To: Moore, Robert; Andi Kleen
>Cc: Andrew Paprocki; Len Brown; Andrew Morton; LKML
>Subject: RE: ACPI WARNING:
>atdrivers/acpi/tables/tbfadt.c:348acpi_tb_create_local_fadt+0x147/0x2f4
()
>
>>>> "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> 17.07.08 19:20 >>>
>>So far, in the number of the cases like this that I've seen, it's the
v2
>>fields that have problems. Perhaps the heuristic should be something
>>like "if there is an inconsistency between the v1 and v2 fields, fall
>>back to v1".
>
>While extending the patch to do so, I realize that other v2 fields are
>used as-is, no matter whether their bit_width (or other fields) are
>wrong. Is that perhaps why hardware/hwregs.c uses hard-coded
>constants rather than the specified widths? If so (and if the v1 fields
>are considered reliable), shouldn't the v2 ones be sanity-checked
>against the v1 ones and then the specified widths be used as intended
>by the spec?
>
>Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/