lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRE: ACPI WARNING: at drivers/acpi/tables/tbfadt.c:348acpi_tb_create_local_fadt+0x147/0x2f4()
>>> "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com> 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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-18 10:45    [W:0.067 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site