Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 May 2010 10:09:07 -0400 | From | Peter Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] ibft: Update iBFT handling for v1.03 of the spec. |
| |
On 05/12/2010 01:26 AM, Len Brown wrote: > >> #define IBFT_SIGN "iBFT" > ... >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI >> + /* >> + * One spec says "IBFT", the other says "iBFT". We have to check >> + * for both. >> + */ > > Really? > Which one do you see in the field?
Well, we haven't seen any ACPI-based hardware yet AFAIK - but I'm supposed to have some soon. So it's too early to tell which one is actually going to be the more common case, or if this is really a non-issue.
> any reason to #define "iBFT" above and not use it below?
Nope, that's just an error. I'll send a patch.
> >> + if (!ibft_addr) >> + acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_IBFT, acpi_find_ibft); >> + if (!ibft_addr) >> + acpi_table_parse("iBFT", acpi_find_ibft); >> +#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */ > > Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
-- Peter
Obviously, a major malfunction has occurred. -- Steve Nesbitt, voice of Mission Control, January 28, 1986
| |