Yes, it is optional for all tables. The code is below. If there is no
AE_BAD_CHECKSUM exception, the table load has not been aborted.
if (Checksum)
{
ACPI_WARNING ((AE_INFO,
"Incorrect checksum in table [%4.4s] - %2.2X, should be
%2.2X",
Table->Signature, Table->Checksum, (UINT8) (Table->Checksum
- Checksum)));
#if (ACPI_CHECKSUM_ABORT)
return (AE_BAD_CHECKSUM);
#endif
}
Default behavior is to ignore checksum errors, just print the warning:
/*
* Should the subsystem abort the loading of an ACPI table if the
* table checksum is incorrect?
*/
#define ACPI_CHECKSUM_ABORT FALSE
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Moore, Robert
>Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:01 PM
>To: 'Len Brown'
>Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: table checksum issues
>
>It's a configuration option, at least for the main tables in the
RSDT/XSDT.
>Perhaps not extended to the loaded tables, I will have to look.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Len Brown [mailto:lenb@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:46 PM
>>To: Moore, Robert
>>Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: table checksum issues
>>
>>Bob,
>>I thought you mentioned the other day that
>>we never discard a table due to a checksum error.
>>But here is an example of us discarding an SSDT
>>with a bad checksum (and causing cpufreq not to work).
>>
>>http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10513
>>
>>Did I mis-understand you?
>>Do you think we should not ignore tables w/ bad checksums
>>in order to be "bug compatible"?
>>
>>thanks,
>>-Len
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
