Re: [PATCHv2 01/12] acpi: Create subtable parsing infrastructure

[Dan Williams]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 3:19 PM Schmauss, Erik <erik.schmauss@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi-
> > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rafael J. Wysocki
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 1:45 AM
> > To: Busch, Keith <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ACPI Devel
> > Maling List <linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Memory Management List
> > <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>; Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> > Hansen, Dave <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>; Williams, Dan J
> > <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 01/12] acpi: Create subtable parsing infrastructure
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:05 AM Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
>
> Hi Rafael and Bob,
>
> > > Parsing entries in an ACPI table had assumed a generic header
> > > structure that is most common. There is no standard ACPI header,
> > > though, so less common types would need custom parsers if they want go
> > > through their sub-table entry list.
> >
> > It looks like the problem at hand is that acpi_hmat_structure is incompatible
> > with acpi_subtable_header because of the different layout and field sizes.
>
> Just out of curiosity, why don't we use ACPICA code to parse static ACPI tables
> in Linux?
>
> We have a disassembler for static tables that parses all supported tables. This
> seems like a duplication of code/effort...

Oh, I thought acpi_table_parse_entries() was the common code. What's
the ACPICA duplicate?